


e “ENGLISH OPINIONS OF 
FRENCH POETRY 


1660-1750 


nay 
ere ia 
Wea yack ihe 


BY 


ROSE HEYLBUT WOLLSTEIN 


SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIRE- 
MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHIL- 
OSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


dew Bork 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1923 
All rights reserved 








| 


| 
- 











EN 





Return this book on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. A 
charge is made on all overdue 


books. 
U. of I. Library 


JUL 31°3 


i > : t se pi lee 
WF 2 vs ~ a f 
a, od 





11148-S 


tY 





Columbia University 
STUDIES IN ROMANCE PHILOLOGY 
AND LITERATURE 


ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


1660-1750 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
NEW YORK 





SALES AGENTS 


LONDON 
HUMPHREY MILFORD 
AMEN CORNER, E.C, 


SHANGHAI 
EDWARD EVANS & SONS, Lap. 
30 NortH SZECHUEN ROAD 





ENGLISH OPINIONS OF 
FRENCH POETRY 


1660-1750 


BY 


ROSE HEYLBUT WOLLSTEIN 


SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIRE- 
MENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHIL- 
OSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


apew Bork 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


1923 
All rights reserved 


Copyright, 1923, 
By CoLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 





Printed from type. Published, May, 1923. 


PRINTED IN U. S. A. 


$40.41 


TO 
MY PARENTS 











Fs 


gait 


; 
‘i 
j 
, 
rm 
j 
. 
4! J 
i 
" 
; 
j 
/ 
, “i h 
1 
Wied 
awe 
awl ‘a , 
‘ y rae | 
pele 
i 
sit ‘ ie 
oe ene Pte 


ry i 
ii ot 















ae 
TV aes 


Ve 







ag 


pr eree Te 


Wowatet 
a) 







‘ 
1 









iets’ de 
os 


1a 


PREFACE 


Berore attempting a discussion of the subject at 
hand, it is well to consider preliminary questions of 
method of treatment, which will explain our later pres- 
entation of the study itself. 

In deciding upon a point of departure for this study, 
it was necessary to find indications of the early attitude 
of England towards French poetry, through the earliest 
monuments of English criticism. A consideration of the 
early English literature itself shows a marked French 
influence, manifested not only in an identity of the Lit- 
erary monuments of the two countries, as, for instance, 
in the great Roland, the works of Marie de France and 
Chrestien de Troyes, and the Roman de la Rose, but, as 
well, in the adherence to French models on the part of 
English writers as late as the days of Wyatt and Surrey,* 
who followed Desportes and Marot almost as closely as 
they did Petrarch. Dusing these centuries we may take 
the living evidences of approval in lieu of written criti- 
cism, all the more in view of the fact that such literary 
criticisms were then of the rarest occurrence. It is not 
until the English Renaissance that English taste asserted 
itself in its true character, more freed from foreign influ- 
ences of spirit and form. 

In determining a date for the appearance of poetic 
criticism in England, I take as authority Charles Gildon, 
who tells us in his Laws of Poetry, that . . . ‘‘it was very 
late before criticism came into England,’’ introducing 
itself when it did come, through Sir Philip Sidney’s 

1L. L. Kastner, “The Elizabethan Sonneteers and the French 
Poets,” Mod. Lang. Review, 1907, Vol. 3, pp. 268-277. 


Vil 


Vili PREFACE 


Apology of Poesy, and Ben Jonson’s Art of Poetry, in 
which latter work Horace is directly followed. Then, 
continues Gildon, there was nothing until the Restora- 
tion, when the first attempts were very faulty. These 

earlier works consist in ‘‘some prefaces,’’ and the works 
of Dryden, Buckingham, Roscommon, and Rymer. 

The reasons, therefore, for taking as the date of our 
opening chapter the Restoration and the age of Dryden, 
are that it marks the beginning of modern English lit- 
erary criticism, furnishing us with many texts, while the 
only pieces of formal criticism preceding it are the two 
referred to by Gildon. The documents we find, further- 
more, are reliable. Finally, along with the development 
of criticism, follows the growth of a reading public, 
becoming more and more ready to take part in the 
formulation of the national taste. 

It being necessary for me in some way to limit my 
work, as a careful survey of the entire field of English 
criticism expressed on French poetry, from Dryden’s day 
until contemporary times, seemed too vast an undertak- 
ing for one piece of single-handed research, I found the 
time of the height of Pope’s activity a convenient stop- 
ping place, since it marks the point where the second | 
wave of foreign influence ebbed in the matter of English 
poetical creeds; and, with the spirit of Chatterton and 
Coleridge, the second appearance of stock-British taste 
vigorously asserted itself, this time through a well formed, 
well founded literary public. 

In presenting the material found, I have, in each chap- 
ter, stated completely one side of the case before begin- 
ning a consideration of the other. In other words, I have 
preferred to draw a complete picture of the favorable 
criticism, in all its phases and aspects, before presenting 
an uninterrupted survey of the unfavorable, rather than 
to treat both sides alternately in regard to any one 
poetic or dramatic.characteristic. In this manner, the 


PREFACE 1x 


import and the force of the criticism in each case is the 
more readily appreciated. 

Finally, keeping uppermost in mind the desire to pre- 
sent a true and clear picture of the English opinion of 
French poetry, quite as it existed during the period in 
question, I have chosen as far as possible to incorporate 
into my text the very words of the critics, in the form of 
quotations.? The large number of these quotations, then, 
is intentional. It is the judgment of this time that is 
the subject of our study, and the individual opinions that 
form it must be left to speak for themselves. I have, 
therefore, collected such opinions as are important for 
our purpose; and have endeavored to present them in 
such a manner that they may assert themselves to the 
greatest effect. It is only then that I have allowed myself 
to interpret the sum total of these results, accounting for 
the views expressed by reasons of politics and the like. 

This study will at some future time be supplemented 
by investigations into the subsequent English opinion 
of French poetry, from 1750 up to the present day. 

It affords me keen pleasure to be enabled thus publicly 
to express my gratitude to those who have helped me in 
preparing my thesis. I wish to thank: 

Professor Raymond Weeks, of Columbia University, 
under whose guidance my studies first became directed 
towards the subject I have treated, and who has shown 
a most kindly interest in my work. 

Professor John L. Gerig, of Columbia University, for 
his ever-ready counsels, which have given me the greatest 
aid in preparing my material, and in developing an 
impartial and critical point of view for its presentation ; 
and for the assuring confidence with which he has 
honored me. 

2In the quotations the spelling found in the text has been re- 


tained, but no attempt has been made to follow the original use 
of italics. 


x PREFACE 


Professor Henry A. Todd, of Columbia University, 
whose advice and encouragement have gone far towards 
removing many of the obstacles besetting my path. 

Professor William P. Trent and Professor John 
Erskine, of Columbia University, who, although not of 
the department in which this thesis is offered, have 
allowed me to feel free to discuss my work with them, 
and have given me material help. 

Professor Jean-Marie Carré, of the University of 
Lyons, whose suggestions have been of great value to me. 

Professor Emile Legouis, of the Sorbonne, who had 
the kindness to read my manuscript. 

My Mother, whose valuable suggestions and keen eriti- 
cisms have afforded me much help, and whose loving 
encouragement has been my greatest incentive. 


CONTENTS 


UA Ne gi inet es ei eniieen fects \« / Pages: Vix 


CHAPTER I 
DRYDEN AND THE CLASSIC THEATRE 


Dramatic Poetry — Court Favor — Politics — Fashions — Litera- 
ture — Favorable Criticism: — Dryden; Questions of Lan- 
guage — Rule— Rhyme; French Models; “Lisideius”’; Mul- 
grave; Evelyn; Howard — Unfavorable Criticism: — Dryden; 
Pepys; French Rules and Order of Procedure — Independent 
and Comparative Criticism— Conclusion . . Pages 1-39 


CHAPTER II 
THE EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 


English Literary Public—Change in Attitude toward French 
Poetry — General Attitude toward France — Literary Influ- 


ences — Boileau — Favorable Criticism: —- Addison; Swift — 
Unfavorable Criticism: — Steele; Dennis — Independent and 
Comparative Criticism— Conclusion . . . Pages 40-63 


CHAPTER III 
THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 


Learned and Less Popular Views—General Attitude toward 
France — Classicism — Pope — Gildon — Boileau — Classic 
Controversy between 1690 and 1700 — Bysshe — Rymer — 


Blount — Temple — Wotton— Conclusion . . Pages 64-94 
MERE S Ne Nie ree fe) he Ve le waged: 95-99 
NORM at eles Sg Te oi) te Page 101-108 


xi 













Mee 
NURI ha Mh 
Ah oT GP aT hog 


oa ; 5 Aw y Q 
y 4 (bet ey aroave ee 








ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH 
POETRY 


CHAPTER I 


DRYDEN’S APPRECIATION OF THE FRENCH CLASSIC 
THEATRE 


THE criticisms expressed by seventeenth-century Eng- 
land on contemporary French poetry deal almost exclu- 
sively with the dramatic poetry of the classic theatre. As 
regards non-dramatie poetry, there was little produced 
in France that could arouse much interest. Lyric poetry 
was on the wane. After 1597 the poems of the Pléiade 
appeared less and less frequently in the ‘‘recueils de 
poésie choisie’’ and it has been said, indeed, that between 
1600 and 1626, not one of Ronsard’s poems was published 
in such anthologies. The Pléiade had fallen into obscur- 
ity, and few penetrated into the dark beyond. The work 
of the two seventeenth century lyric schools—that of Mal- 
herbe, engaged chiefly in the polishing and repolishing 
of verse forms and word forms; and the coterie of the 
libertins, headed by the unfettered Théophile de Viau— 
offered features which, though interesting in themselves, 
are not strong enough to hold their own against the white 
light of the all-surpassing classic drama. The satiric and 
critical poems that appeared later in the century were 

1 The first record we find of Ronsard’s poems appearing in these 
verse collections is the Recueil des plus belles pieces des poétes 
francais, published by Fontenelle in 1692, which contains thirty- 
four of his “poésies amoureuses.” (Fuchs, “Comment les XVIIe 
et XVIIIe siécles ont jugé Ronsard”; Revue de la Renaissance, 
1908, vol. 9, pp. 24-27.) 

1 


2 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


treated by their English critics from the point of view 
of their content, and quite apart from much recognition 
of their poetic form. La Fontaine received but little 
attention. Lady Winchilsea modelled her Fables upon 
his; but beyond this, and an occasional scanty reference 
(where his poems are mentioned without comment) he 
seems hardly to be regarded at all. 

As to the earlier poetry, very little seemed to be known 
about it at this time in France itself. Boileau, in his Art 
Poétique, merely mentions Villon, Marot and Ronsard, 
but further than this, the general knowledge of the lyric 
past of France, such knowledge as could easily circulate 
and penetrate beyond the frontiers without deep inves- 
tigation or study, seems negligible. 

French poetry of this time is almost synonymous with 
the more important dramatic poetry. It is dramatic 
poetry that spread across the frontiers of France, and all 
criticisms of poetry in the time in question deal with it 
before all else. In our study of the reception that French 
poetry was accorded in England we shall, then, be busied 
primarily with the treatment that the dramatic poetry of 
France met at the hands of Restoration England. 

The court of Charles I. had left behind it a heritage of 
interest in the French drama. Henrietta Maria favored 
the taking over into English of French dramatic elements, 
and in 1637 Rutter’s translation of the Cid was favor- 
ably received at the English court but shortly after its 
French publication.? This was the beginning of a mani- 


2 Dorothy Canfield, Corneille and Racine in England, N. Y., 
1904, pp. 5-6. 

“In regard to the partiality of the Queen for French dramatic 
literature, it must be remembered that at this time the English 
stage was not in a condition to arouse any enthusiasm in even the 
most broad-minded of French women. Shakespeare was gone, Ben 
Jonson’s pedantic severity, the horrors of the tragedy of that time, 
and the grossness of the comedy, were not attractive qualities to 
one fresh from Paris.” 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 3 


festation of interest through translation which, though 
not so prevalent at this moment, was to grow into promi- 
nence only a short while later. 

Many of the Cavaliers, accustomed to the influences of 
Charles’s court and fleeing from the powers that over- 
threw it, sought refuge in France. Contemporary opin- 
ion deemed the Parisian finishing touch necessary for the 
‘‘nerfect cavalier.’’ Says John Evelyn,’ ‘‘. . . that our 
traveller may have .. . time and resodlution to conquer 
the language, and go through those hardy and most emi- 
nent exercises which are there to be learned in their 
choicest perfection and native lustre; after which... 
he may return home, and be justly reputed a most accom- 
plished Cavalier.’’ Again he speaks of ‘‘. .. Paris, 
where indeed I would have the principal abode of a Gen- 
tleman to be...’’ (p. 50) and remarks in its praise, 
*‘T think no city in the whole world equalizes it... . 
This I will boldly affirm, that for the streets, suburbs, 
and common. buildings, it infinitely excels any city else- 
where in Europe ...’’ (pp. 92, 93). 

The literary fashions brought back to England by the 
Cavaliers upon their return from France are of the 
greatest importance to us. The English, tiring of the 
fantastic excesses of the Elizabethan age and the early 
seventeenth century, jaded by their civil wars and their 
religious controversies, and needing a clear prose to 
express their new scientific and economic achievements, 
were naturally prepared to give a more favorable recep- 
tion to French literature, including its drama and poetry, 
than they might otherwise have been when Charles and 
the Cavaliers returned from France. In other words, 
the court party had a good soil to work upon, especially 
as the robust anglicanism of writers of Milton’s stamp 
was in disrepute. 

3 John Evelyn, The State of France, Edition Upcott. London, 
1825. Foreword, p. 51. 


4 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Gallant poetry as it flourished in the polished salons of 
Paris, with its ideal ‘‘une pensée délicate dans une forme 
facile et harmonieuse’’* found favor with English nobil- 
ity of the stamp of Sedley, Rochester, Buckingham, and 
Newcastle. Conventions of the type of ‘‘Tendre’”® with 
anagrammatic and mythological names were popular. 
But of greatest importance was the influence of the 
French stage. 

One valuable effect of the Restoration was the re-open- 
ing of the theatres.¢ The two licenses to organize troupes 
of actors were both issued by royal favor to recently 
returned Cavaliers,—D’Avenant and Killigrew. In the 
opinion of Charlanne,’ ‘‘C’est done du ecdté du roi et de 
la cour que s’orientent la littérature en général et le 
drame en particulier: ¢c’est une rupture avec le passé.’’ 
There are indications as well that this influence was to 
last. In a note on Shadwell’s Impertinents, played at 
Dover in 1670, when the King journeyed there to meet his 
sister, the Duchess of Orleans, Downes (Roscius Angli- 
canus, p. 29) tells us that the actors dressed in a fashion 
‘‘to ape the French,’’ and please the court. The same 
author relates that around 1700, Thomas Betterton was 
put to an enormous expense importing French actors 
and dancers ‘‘to gratify the desires and fancies of the 
nobility and gentry’’ (p. 46). It is further remarked 
that these performances were pleasing to the court. 


4A, Beljame, Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre 
au dix-huitiéme siecle, 1660-1744; Paris, 1897, p. 10. 

5 “Tendre,” a map planned by Mademoiselle de Scudéry chart- 
ing the sea of the affections, indicating the various degrees of sen- 
timent passed through before arriving at the highest goal of 
“tendre,’ and distinguishing the right from the wrong way of 
proceeding, ‘ 

6 A. Beljame, op. cit., p. 30. “L’organisation des théatres fut 
done une des premiéres affaires d’état dont s’occupa Charles II.” 

7 L. Charlanne, L’Influence francaise en Angleterre, Paris, 1906, 
p. 82. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 5 


Further, we find that Charles attended the theatres 
himself, which proved an innovation, his predecessors 
having ordered the troupes of players to come to them to 
make their appearances. And in his interest in the thea- 
tre ‘‘Charles n’était pas seulement un spectateur amusé 
et un protecteur généreux, il devenait volontiers un 
conseiller écouté, un guide littéraire qui, 4 tort ou a 
raison, faisait autorité . . .’’ (Charlanne, p. 79.) Dry- 
den defends a fault in The Virgin Queen by declaring 
that it pleased the king, the best judge. Finally, Roger 
Boyle, the Earl of Orrery, comments, in a letter, upon 
the Black Prince, his first play: 

**T have just now finished a play in the French man- 
ner; because I heard the king declare himself more in 
favor of their way of writing than ours; my poor attempt 
cannot please his Majesty, but my example may incite 
others who can .. .”’ 

The king’s favoring French literary conventions, the 
interest evinced in them by the nobility, and the sudden 
flourishing of the stage could have but one result—the 
*‘frenchifying’’ to a marked degree of the English 
stage. 

A number of important Restoration plays found their 
immediate sources in the French plays so favorably 
regarded by the King and the Court, and translations 
and adaptations of the French abounded.* Furthermore, 
the Restoration marks the beginning of the foothold that 
Corneille and Racine were to gain on the English stage 
mainly through translation, although we shall see that 
the originals were not unfamiliar to those whose taste 
set the standard in literary fashion. ‘‘The reign of 
Charles II. was the golden period of translation from 

8 For excellent lists of these plays see Canfield, Corneille and 


_ Racine in England, Appendix; and Margaret Sherwood, Dryden’s 
Dramatic Theory and Practice, Boston, 1898, p. 7. 


6 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


French tragedies. ... Their efforts [the nobles’] to 
introduce French ways of thought into English literature 
lose an element of artificiality if they are regarded as 
spontaneous and as a result of their own taste, even if 
this taste was an acquired one.’’® 

This wealth of translation, however, was a Restoration 
florescence; with the death of Charles II. there occurred 
a period of inaction among translators. These transla- 
tions were regarded, then, not, as is often the case in 
our own day, as borrowed adaptations, but they were 
incorporated into the body of English literature. ‘‘The 
attempt of the translators of the Restoration was not 
primarily to make plays out of French tragedies, but 
English works of literature out of French masterpieces.’’ 
(Canfield, p. 30.) 

Along with these translations and adaptations, there 
is evidence of the interest shown in French dramatic 
influences by Restoration England in the form of lamen- 
tations—from writers less under the trans-Channel spell 
for fear that French literary customs might supplant 
British ones in the hearts of the noble judges. 


“With sickly actors and an old house, too, 

We’re matched with glorious theatres and new, 
And with our ale-house scenes and clothes bare worn, 
Can neither raise old plays nor new adorn. 

If all these ills could not undo us quite, 

A brisk French troop is grown your dear delight; 
Who with broad bloody bills call you each day, 

To laugh and break your buttons at their play; 

Or see some serious piece which we presume 

Is fallen from some incomparable plume; 


We dare not on your privilege intrench, 
Or ask you why you like them?—They are French.” 
_ (Dryden, Prologue to Arviragus and Philicia.) — 


9 Canfield, op. cit., pp. 28, 29. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 4 


And again, 

I “Whate’er our hot-brained sheriffs did advance, 
Was, like our fashions, first produced in France: 
And, when worn out, well scourg’d, and banish’d there, 


Sent over like their godly beggars here.” 
(Dryden, Prologue to The Duke of Guise.) 10 


Samuel Butler takes his place under these standards, 
regretting sincerely and vociferously the extravagant 
imitation of all things French during the reign of 
Charles II. It is beyond doubt that the English 


“Admire whate’er they find abroad, 
But nothing here, though e’er so good.” 
(Satire on our Ridiculous Imitation of the French.) 


The literary and dramatic tastes of the King and the 
Court party were eminently French. Charles was unwill- 
ing to conceive of ideas of the theatre different from those 
in vogue in France; he preferred plays ‘‘dans le gotit 
franeais’’ to all others,+ and in these he admired par- 
ticularly the observance of rules, the dignity of the per- 
sonages, and the beauty of the rhyme. These conventions 
flourished, since they represented the King’s taste. 

The currents we have been following represent those of 
the Court. ‘‘La bourgeoisie, convaincue de Puritanisme, 
fut brutalement mise a l’écart, annihilée; la cour prit 
toute la place au soleil, et tout se régla sur elle, adopta ses 
gouts et ses amusements.’’!? The middle class, less cos- 
mopolitan and not at all subjected to French influences, 


10 Further (Dryden, Epilogue to The Wild Gallant) : 
“Our poet yields you should this play refuse 
As tradesmen, by the change of fashion lose 
With some content their fripperies of France, 
In hope it may their staple trade advance.” 


11 From a letter cited in the Preface to the Dramatic Works of 
Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery. 
12 A, Beljame, op. cit., pp. 2-3. 


8 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


were slower to burrow their way out of the Puritan 
snows. Even after Charles had sanctioned the opening 
of the theatres, many of the bourgeoisie still regarded 
them as houses of iniquity, and hesitated to frequent 
them. The spectacles witnessed by the people were still 
of a primitive nature. On June 16, 1670, John Evelyn 
attended an entertainment of this sort at the Bear- 
Garden. He quite naturally takes no pleasure in cock- 
fighting, dog-fighting, and bull-baiting, and styles it 
‘‘butcherly, barbarously cruel, rude, and dirty.’’* Al- 
though opposition to the court tastes was not confined to 
the burgher class which was little lettered, yet the scant 
following of Bunyan and Milton give almost no voice to 
their poetic beliefs at this time. 

Thus we see formed at the period of the Restoration 
divergent standards of poetic criticism. It will be the 
purpose of this study to follow both currents of this 
criticism as it is expressed on the poetry of France, in 
order to determine at a later time the tendency of English 
opinion regarding French poetry as a whole. 


* * * 


As we have inferred from the attitude of the aristoc- 
racy, cordial relations existed between the courts of Eng- 
land and France. During the winter of 1660-1661 the 
Queen mother visited England, returning to France in 
January, 1661; in March of the same year, the cousin 
of John Evelyn was sent to France ‘‘to condole the death 
of Mazarine [sic] ;’’ the following year (January, 1662) 
‘‘Monseignor [sic] Morus preached before Court in 
French.’ Still later (1664) at ‘‘a magnificent triumph 
by water and land of the Lord Maior, Sir John Law- 
rence, ...my Lord Maior came twice up to us, first 

13 Evelyn, Memoirs, Edition Bray, London, 1827, p. 322, vol. 2. 

1The Bray edition of the Memoirs of John Evelyn (vol. II.) 


from which these quotations are taken, gives the following note 
on Morus: “Probably Alexander Morus, the antagonist of Milton.” 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 9 


drinking in the golden goblett his Majesty’s health, then 
the French King’s, as a compliment to the Ambassador.”’ 

Relations such as these augured well for the reception 
to be accorded those principles which France had to 
bestow upon the world of art. We have been concerned 
thus far with determining the existence of the interest 
shown by the nobility in French plays. Let us now con- 
sider how the presented plays, as well as other literary 
conventions, were received, and proceed at length to a 
study of the reasons supporting their popularity. 

We may believe that translations out of the French, 
particularly of the nobler tragedies, were cordially re- 
ceived. ‘‘French plays were acclaimed with favor in 
London.’ Not one of these plays, irrespective of its 
merits as a piece of translation, was a failure. The Eng- 
lish version of Heraclius (probably Carlell’s) was quite 
successful both in 1664 and in 1666. Pepys praised it 
and the nobles waxed enthusiastic about its merits. John 
Dancer’s Nicomedes of 1671 met with approval at the 
time in Dublin, and Genest says laconically ‘‘. . . it is 
not a bad play.’’? Mrs. Philips’s translation of Pompey 
in 1663 received an ovation both in Dublin and in 
London, and grew to find itself quite the sensation of 
the day. It continued to find favor as late as 1668 and 
won success as a book-play as well, when it appeared in 


2 Canfield, op. cit., p. 33. Again (pp. 16-17): “The French 
stage was in a position of undisputed authority and in all the 
freshness of the first glow of its golden period. Corneille stood 
unapproached by any rival, and of all French tragic poets, he is 
the one most calculated to inspire admiration in the English mind. 
His greatest plays were all written at this time [that of the 
English civil wars] and his force and power and lofty dignity 
were eminently calculated to prevent British minds from dwelling 
on the un-English details of rhymed Alexandrines and the obser- 
vance of the unities.” 

8 John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, 1832, vol. X, 
p. 271. 


10 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


1667, 1669, 1678, and 1710, in editions of Mrs. Philips’ 
works. 

Lest we think that this interest confined itself to 
French poetry become anglicized, contemporary evidence 
shows that a knowledge of French was an integral part 
of a ‘‘polite education.’’ Special mention is often made 
of gentlewomen who knew none but their own language. 
Ballard‘ comments on Lady Chudleigh’s ‘‘. .. being 
taught no other language but her native tongue’’; and of 
Catherine Bovey he says, ‘‘. . . I am not positively as- 
sured that this worthy gentlewoman was either a linguist 
or a writer.’’ French poetry was read and some of the 
more ambitious ladies gave themselves up to translating 
and even writing it. ‘‘Soon after her death [Mrs. Kath- 
erine Philips] her poems and translations were collected 
and published in a volume in folio, with the following 
title: Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Kath- 
erine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added 
Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, Tragedies. 
With several other translations out of French, London, 
1677 ...’’ (Ballard, p. 294). Among the works of Esther 
Inglis, a learned lady who lived early in the seventeenth 
century, we find Les Six Vingts et Six Quatrains de Guy 
de Faur, Sieur de Pybrac, escrits par Esther Inglis, pour 
son dermer adieu. (Ballard, p. 268.) Mrs. Aphra Behn 
followed the models of Tendre and La Montre of Bonne- 
course, and gives as subtitle to The Golden Age, ‘‘a para- 
phrase on a translation out of French.’’ (Poems Upon 
Several Occasions.) Lady Winchilsea, among the best 
known of the women poets, shows a marked influence 
from France, her Fables, the most noteworthy perhaps of 
all her works, being based entirely upon those of La 
Fontaine. If we admit the weight of this evidence to 
prove that French poetry was well received among the 


4G. Ballard, Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain, Lon- 
don, 1752. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE p 


upper classes of Restoration England, we may turn to a 
consideration of the reasons for this popularity, gleaned 
from contemporary documents. 

French was the classic language of the times. Says 
Sir Charles Sedley, 


“Now Gallants, most of you are so well bred, 
French has long since chas’d Latin from your Head.” 5 


Interesting in this connection is Samuel Butler’s sum- 
ming up of the result of French influence in matters of 
language. 
“For though to smatter ends of Greek 
Or Latin be the rhetorique 
Of pedants counted, and vain-glorious, 
To smatter French is meritorious.” 
(Satire upon our Ridiculous Imitation of the French.) 


As a poetic medium Dryden awarded the first place to 
Italian, ranked French next, and English last. ‘‘The 
English has yet more natural disadvantages than the 
French; our original Teutonick consisting most in mono- 
syllables, and those encumbred with consonants, which 
cannot possibly be freed from those inconveniences. .. . 
But, on the other hand, the effeminacy of our pronuncia- 
tion (a defect common to us, and to the Danes), and our 
scarcity of female rhimes, have left the advantage of 
musical composition for songs, though not for recitative, 
to our neighbors.’’ ® 
And further in the Preface to Albion and Albanws, 
Dryden gives voice to a discovery. ‘‘The English, I con- 
fess, are not so musical as the French.’’ Not only does 


5 The Mistris, Epilogue, Sedley’s Works, London, 1722, 2 vols. 

6 Albion and Albanius, Preface. Again, in the Dedication to 
Troilus and Cressida we find, “We are full of monosyllables and 
those clogg’d with consonants, and our pronunciation is effeminate. 
All of which are enemies to founding a language. Tis true, to 
supply our poverty, we have traffick’d with our neighbor na- 
RpOiiaty at oi 


12 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


he find English inadequate for poetry (with the tacit 
admission that. ‘‘poetry’’ means the un-English rhyme) 
but he regrets the lack of any system of standardizing 
and purifying it, similar to the one furnished by the 
French Academy. ‘‘Only I am sorry that (speaking so 
noble a language as we do) we have not a more certain 
measure of it, as they have in France, where they have 
an Academy ...’’ (Rival Ladies, Epistle Dedicatory). 

The salient feature of the French classic tragedy is its 
adherence to the rules of the unities. The dual nature 
of the time with which we are dealing, ‘‘a time of battle 
between French rules of order, regularity, symmetry, 
and the apparent lawlessness of the English practise,’”’ 
is readily seen in the utterly divergent views of some of 
its commentators. For the moment, though, let us confine 
ourselves to that criticism which showed itself favorable 
to French institutions. 

The sympathy which the unities won in England was 
based upon the fundamental assumption that obedience 
to these rules meant that closer imitation of nature which 
is the aim of poetry, and not infrequently the ideas of 
nearness to nature and adherence to the rules are used 
synonymously. Dryden tells of that play being ‘‘nearest 
to Nature whose action is within twenty-four hours.’’§ 
Again, in his Essay on Satire, Dryden agrees with Aris- 
totle in that tragedy is the most perfect work of poetry 
because it is most unified and most rigidly bound by the 
rules of action, time, and place.® 

This then is the attitude that we find the foremost 

7M. Sherwood, Dryden’s Dramatic Theory and Practise, p. 6. 

8 These rules are the chief means by which the Ancients, Jonson, 
and Corneille succeeded in imitating Nature, “derived from the 
authority of Aristotle and Horace, and from the rules and ex- 
amples of Ben Jonson and Corneille.” Hssay of Dramatic Poesy. 

9 We are aware, making Dryden our chief authority, of his 


fluctuating views. We believe, though, that Dryden’s instability 
in matters literary, as well as politic, hinged directly upon the 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC’ THEATRE 13 


playwright of the Restoration accepting for the time 
being. He is a disciple of Corneille’s, a friend of the 
rules, and of those who uphold them. 

‘Quotations are superfluous in an establish’d truth. 
Otherwise I could reckon up among the Moderns, all the 
Italian commentators on Aristotle’s Book of Poetry; and 
amongst the French, the greatest of this age, Boileau and 
Rapin: The latter of which is alone sufficient, were all 
other criticks lost, to teach anew the rules of writing.’’ *° 

Gerard Langbaine emphasizes Dryden’s debt to the 
French stage: 

‘‘But for comedy he is for the most part beholding to 
French Romances and Plays, not only for his plots, but 
even a great part of his language; tho’ at the same time 
he has the confidence to prevaricate, if not flatly deny 
the accusation and equivocally to defend himself.’’"* 
While Charlanne styles him ‘‘Le plus grand vulgarisa- 
teur de la doctrine et du talent de Despréaux’’ (p. 314). 

Dryden sets forth the following plan for himself in 
the Prologue to Secret Love or the Maiden Queen: 


“He who writ this, not with out pains or thought, 
From French and English theatres has brought 
Th’ exactest rules by which a play is wrought. 
The Unities of action, place and time, 

The scenes unbroken; and a mingled chime 
Of Jonson’s humour and Corneille’s rhime.” 


And again: 
‘‘For what else concerns this play, I would tell the 


views, or possible change of views, of the party in power. We 
feel secure in citing him, therefore, less as a study of Dryden 
himself, than as a representative of contemporary opinion, which- 
- ever way it leaned. 

10 The State of Innocence and Fall of Man, Preface, A Defence 
of Heroick Poetry. 

11 Account of English Dramatic Poets, 1691, John Dryden, Esq., 
Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, Spingarn, vol. III, 
pp. 110-147. 


14 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


reader that it is regular, according to the strictest of 
dramatic laws, but that it is a commendation which many 
of our poets now despise, and a beauty which our com- 
mon audiences do not easily discern.’’ (Secret Love, 
Preface. ) 

We find Dryden agreeing with the classic traditions of 
keeping comedy and tragedy apart: ‘‘Too many acci- 
dents incumber the poet . . . for the variety of Passions 
which they produce are ever crossing and justling each 
other out of the way. He who treats of joy and grief 
together is in a fair way of causing neither of those 
effects.’’ (Troidus and Cressida, Preface.) And finally, 
besides advocating and practising the rules, he defends 
them against attack, using the authority of a French 
eritic : 

‘But because many men are shocked at the name of 
rules, as if they were a kind of Magisterial Prescription 
upon poets, I will conclude with the words of Rapin, in 
his Reflections on Aristotle’s Work of Poetry. If the 
rules be well consider’d, we shall find them to be made 
only to reduce Nature into Method, to trace her step by 
step, and not to suffer the least mark of her to escape 
us... . But ’tis evident by the ridiculous mistakes and 
eross absurdities, which have been made by those poets 
who have taken their fancy only for their guide, that if 
this fancy be not regulated, ’t is a meer caprice, and 
utterly incapable to produce a reasonable and judicious 
poem.’’ (Ibid.) 

After the rigorous rules of the French classic drama, 
the trait most likely to form a point of contention in 
English minds is the use of the rhymed Alexandrine. 
That feelings ran high on this point is shown by the 


12 As a further example (Troilus and Cressida, Preface) : 
‘. .. I made with no small trouble, an order and connexion of 
all the scenes: . ..a due proportion of time allowed for every 
motion.” 


€ 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 15 


warm presentation of both sides of the case in Dryden’s 
Essay of Dramatic Poesy (which we shall have occasion 
to consider later). Dryden himself favors rhyme, op- 
poses it, and again looks kindly upon it.*® 

As we have already suggested, each view that Dryden 
puts forth has value as representative of some important 
current of contemporary opinion, if it has none as an 
example of constancy to any given principle on the part 
of the writer himself. 

Dryden offers several arguments in favor of the French 
rhymed tragedy: ‘‘. . . it must be granted, rhyme has 
all the advantages of prose, besides its own. ... The 
advantages of rhyme over blank verse are so many, that 
it were lost time to name them.’’ (Rival Ladies, Epistle 
Dedic.) And again, ‘‘ You would have him [the drama- 
tist] follow Nature, but he must follow her on foot; you 
have dismounted him from his Pegasus.’’ i. e., in oppos- 
ing rhyme. (Essay of Dramatic Poesy.) Rhyme is an 
aid to memory, an added grace in writing, and a curb to 
unbridled fancy. 

13 The following table is calculated to represent the steps in 
Dryden’s varying attitude towards rhyme: 

The Wild Gallant, in prose. 

The Rival Ladies, a small part rhymed. 

The Indian Queen, entirely rhymed. 

The Indian Emperor, entirely rhymed. 

Secret Love, less favorable to rhyme. 

Aureng-Zebe, “grows weary of his long lov’d Mistress, Rhime.” 

All for Love, not rhymed. 

Troilus and Cressida, more French in form. 

Amboyna, a mixture of rhyme and prose. 

Love Triumphant, rhyme and blank verse. 

Don Sebastian, presents a mixture. 

Cleomenes, nearer to Shakesperian form. 

There are some rhymed verses in all Dryden’s plays, and some 
prose in all but All for Love. His early tendency seems to be to 
use prose for comic parts, and heroic rhyme for serious and 
pathetic parts. 


16 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


‘‘ Judgment is indeed the Master workman in a play; 
but he requires many subordinate hands, many tools to 
his assistance. And verse I affirm to be one of these; ’tis 
a rule and line by which he keeps his building compact 
and even, which otherwise lawless imagination would 
raise either irregularly or loosely; at least, if the poet 
commits errors with this help, he would make greater 
and more without it: ’tis in short, a slow and painful, 
but the surest way of writing.’’ (Jbid.) Furthermore, 
it does not prevent a close imitation of Nature, being ‘‘at 
least as natural as blank verse . . . Heroick rhyme is 
nearest Nature, as being the noblest kind of modern 
verse.’’ (Ibid., p. 91.) 

Arguments against rhyme, he continues, reflect less 
upon the principle of rhyme itself, than on the bad 
management of an unskilled rhymester; mean writers 
write ‘‘meanly’’ in any form. ‘‘. . . if you cannot find 
six natural lines together, it will be as hard for you to 
produce as many lines in blank verse, even among the 
greatest of our poets.’’ (Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 
89.) Furthermore, rhyme is not artificial. 

‘For the due choice of your words expresses your 
sense naturally, and the due placing of them adapts the 
rhyme to it. If you object that one verse may be made 
for the sake of another, though both the words and the 
rhyme be apt, I answer, it cannot possibly so fall out; 
for either there is a dependence of sense betwixt the first 
line and the second, or there is none: if there be that 
connection, then, in the natural position of the words 
the latter line must of necessity flow from the former; 
if there be no dependence, yet still the due ordering of 
the words makes the last line as natural in itself as the 
other: so that the necessity of a rhyme never forces any 
but a bad or lazy writer to say what they would not 
otherwise.’’ (Ibid., p. 85.) 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 17 


By a faulty placing of the words blank verse may be 
rendered equally artificial. 

The further objection, that rhyme is poorly suited to 
repartee, may be equally true of blank verse, where the 
check is placed by the measure, if not by the rhyme 
words: 

‘* When a poet has found the repartee, the last perfec- 
tion he can add to it, is to put it into verse. However 
good the thought may be, however apt the words in 
which ’tis couched, yet he finds himself at a little unrest, 
while rhyme is wanting: he cannot leave it until that 
comes naturally, and then is at ease, and sits down con- 
tented.’’ (Ibid., p. 95.) 


And again (Ibid., p. 94): ‘*. .. poignant brevity of 
repartee . . . joined with the cadences and sweetness of 
the rhyme, leaves nothing in the soul of the hearer to 
desire.’’ 

The more elevated sentiments of tragedy, the nobler 
type of personage, requires a nobler form of diction, 
which is supplied by rhyme: 


‘‘Blank verse is acknowledged to be too low for a 
poem, nay more, for a paper of verses; but if too low for 
an ordinary sonnet, how much more for tragedy, which 
is by Aristotle ranked above it?’’ (Ibid., p. 92.) 


(a9 


And again in the same essay (p. 84) we find: 
rhime is there [in serious plays] as natural and more 
effectual than blank verse.’’ 

Dryden makes short work of the views that oppose 

rhyme on the authority of the great Elizabethans’ use 
of blank verse, ‘‘. . . that because they excellently de- 
serib’d passions without rhime, therefore rhime was not 
capable of describing it. But time has now convine’d 
most men of that error.’? (Hssay of Herowck Plays, 
printed as Preface to the Conquest of Granada.) 


18 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


It must be remembered that the litterateurs of the 
nobility favored the use of rhyme. Says Dryden, con- 
tinuing his defense: 

‘* “Hist ubi plebs recte putat, est ubi peccat.’? Horace 
says it of the vulgar judging poesy. But if you mean 
the mixed audience of the populace and the noblesse, I 
dare confidently affirm that a great part of the latter 
sort are already favorable to verse.’’ (Hssay of Dra- 
matic Poesy, p. 90.) 


And as final authority for the use of rhyme we learn 
that ‘‘. . . the French, Italian and Spanish tragedies 
are generally writ in it; and sure the universal consent 
of the most civilized parts of the world, ought, in this 
as it does in other customs, to include the rest.’’ (lbid., 
etal fein 

Along with these definite defenses of French dramatie 
conventions, we find instances of the admiration in which 
they were held by acknowledgments that English authors 
had borrowed from them or modelled themselves upon 
them. According to Dryden, D’Avenant ‘‘. . . height- 
ened his characters . . . from the example of Corneille 
and some French poets.’’ (Essay of Heroick Plays.) 
Almanzor found its inspiration, among other sources, 
from the ‘‘ Artaban of Monsieur Calprenede.’’ In Love 
Triumphant Dryden followed the example of Corneille 
and ‘‘stretch’d the latitude to a street and a palace, not 
far distant from each other in the same city.’’ (Epistle 


14 Dryden suggests as a reason for the opposition to rhyme in 
England that English poets “write so ill in it.” (Ibid, p. 53.) 
Compare (Beljame, op. cit., p. 41): 

“.. on adopta la rime, qui, si elle parait nécessaire au rhythme 
de nos vers francais, fait des vers anglais un chant lyrique in- 
supportable dans une cuvre de longue haleine, et qui est si mani- 
festement contraire au génie dramatique de nos voisins, que 
detronée par Marlowe au XVIe siécle, les poétes de la Restaura- 
tion ne purent lui donner qu’une vie factice de quelques années 
aprés lesquelles elle disparut 4 tout jamais du théatre.” 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 19 


Dedicatory.) Again, in the dedication to Amphitryon, 
Dryden says: 

‘‘ -Tis true, were this comedy wholly mine, I should 

eall it a trifle, and perhaps not think it worth your 
patronage; but the names of Plautus and Moliére are 
joyn’d in it; that is, the two greatest names of ancient 
and modern comedy .. .’’ 
Of his Indian Emperor Dryden says that ‘‘ ’tis an irreg- 
ular piece, if compared with many of Corneille’s .. .’’ 
(Dedication) and begs his audiences ‘**. . : not to com- 
pare him [i. e., Amphitryon] too strictly with Moliére’s,’’ 
(Dedication.) %° 

The English populace is bidden to take example from 
the French, and enjoy the new operas: 


“Then ’tis the mode of France, without whose rules, 

None must presume to set up here for fools; 

In France, the oldest man is ever young, 

Sees operas daily, learns the tunes so long, 

*Till foot, hand, head, keeps time with ev’ry song. 

Each sings his part, echoing from pit and box, 

With his hoarse voice, half harmony, half pox. 

Le plus grand Roy du monde is always ringing; 

They show themselves good subjects by their singing.” 

Albion and Albanius, Prologue. 


The operas themselves, it must be remembered, were but 
recently imported from France, and enjoyed the vogue 
that all French dramatic innovations were accorded.*® 


15 Again, “Tho’ Corneille is more resolute in his preface before 
his Pertharite, which was condemn’d more universally than this; 
for he avows boldly, that in spite of censure, his play was well 
and regularly written; which is more than I dare say for mine. 

..” (Wild Gallant, Preface.) 

16 The Spanish Fryar, Prologue. 

“The French and we still change, but here’s the curse, 
They change for better, and we change for worse; 
They take up our old trade of conquering, 

And we are taking theirs, to dance and sing: 
Our fathers did, for change, to France repair, 
And they, for change, will try our English air.” 


20 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


By way of concluding our study of those Restoration 
Opinions that were favorable to the French classic school, 
let us stop a moment with the excellent résumé of these 
views furnished by Lisideius, who, of the four debaters in 
Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy, upholds the French. 
This youth is drawn after the person of Sir Charles Sed- 
ley, whose surname has been used in Latinized anagram. 
Lisideius, then, is representative of the Sedley coterie, 
and their literary creeds. 

Lisideius comments, first of all, on the preéminence of 
the French stage, not only over that of England, but over 
the rest of Europe: ‘‘...Corneille and some other 
Frenchmen, reformed their theatre (which before was as 
much below ours, as it now surpasses it and the rest of 
Europe).’’ (P. 41.) He proceeds next to state and 
analyse the reasons for this preéminence. The serupu- 
lous observance of the unities, especially of that of action, 
makes for greater naturalness, and is by no means dull or 
unvaried: ‘*, . . they do not burden them [their plays] 
with underplots, as the English do; which is the reason 
why many scenes of our tragi-comedies carry on a design 
that is nothing of kin to the main plot; and we see two 
distinct webs in a play, like those in ill-wrought stuffs.’’ 
(P. 42.) And again: ‘*... the French afford you as 
much variety on the same day, but they do it not so 
unseasonably, or mal a propos as we do [in tragi- 
comedies’’]. 

He cites another source of ‘‘naturalness’’ in the classic 
writer’s managing of his characters upon the stage. ‘‘. . . 
[let] no person after his first entrance . . . ever appear, 
but the business which brings him upon the stage shall 
be evident.’’ (P. 52.) He uses Corneille’s authority for 
declaring it absurd for an actor to leave the stage, simply 
because he has nothing more to say. One character is 
rightly of highest importance, but the others, if less en- 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE on 


grossing, are all necessary to the furthering of the play: 
‘¢. . . Let him produce any one of Corneille’s tragedies, 
wherein every person, like so many servants in a well 
governed family, has not some employment, and who is 
not necessary to the carrying on of the plot, or at least, 
to your understanding of it.’’ (P. 46.) 
He praises the French for using speeches to ‘*. . . avoid 
the tumult to which we are subjected in England, by 
representing duels, battles and the like; which renders 
our stage too like the theatre where they fight prizes;’’ 
p. 47) and he bases this opinion on a passage from 
Corneille’s Discowrs des trois Umtés..7 He further 
praises French plays for drawing their sources from his- 
tory—ex noto fictum carmen sequar—and for interweav- 
ing this historical truth with a possible fiction, thereby 
forming a pleasant fallacy not incompatible with nature. 
He contrasts them with English historical plays, even 
with those of Shakespeare, which, ‘‘cramping forty years 
into two hours, like chronicles, are miniatures rather than 
imitations of Nature.’’ 

Lisideius admires the French structure which never 
allows a mere change of will to govern the denouement : 

‘*. . . you never see any of their plays end with a 
conversion, or a simple change of will, which is the or- 
dinary way which our poets use to end theirs.’’ (P. 51.) 
He upholds French rhyme with arguments similar to 
those which we have already considered. Further in the 
Essay Dryden gives as one of the merits of Jonson’s 

17 “Le poéte n’est pas tenu d’exposer 4 la vue toutes les actions 
particuliéres qui aménent A la principale: il doit choisir celles 
qui lui sont les plus avantageuses a faire voir, soit par la beauté 
du spectacle, soit par l’éclat et la véhemence des passions qu’elles 
produisent, soit par quelqu’autre agrément, qui leur soit attaché, 
et cacher les autres derriére la scéne, pour les faire connaitre au 


spectateur, ou par une narration, ou par quelqu’autre addresse de 
Vart.” 


22 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Silent Woman, its measuring up to certain standards of 
excellence determined by Corneille: 

‘“One of these advantages is that which Corneille has 
laid down as the greatest which can arrive to any poem, 
and which he himself could never compass above thrice 
in all his plays; viz. the making of choice of some signal 
and long expected day, whereon the action of the play is 
to depend.’’ (Pp. 75-76.) 

And finally, Lisideius says: ‘‘But I have been too long 
in this discourse, since the French have many other ex- 
cellencies not common to us.’’ (P. 51.) 

Other critics besides Dryden show themselves favorable 
to the French poetry of this age. According to the com- 
ment of the Earl of Mulgrave, 


“The unities of action, time, and place, 
Which, if observed, give plays so great a grace, 
Are, tho’ but little practis’d, too well known 
To be taught here; .. .” 
| —Essay on Poetry. 


And again, on the question of rhyme he feels that: 


“Number and rhyme and that harmonious sound, 
Which never dares the ear with harshness wound 
Are necessary, yet but vulgar arts... .” 
—Ibid. 


Besides expressing his approval of the results of classic 
doctrine as practised by the French, Mulgrave under- 
takes to classify the great poets of all time in the fol- 
lowing order: Virgil, Horace, Spenser, Milton, Waller, 
Malherbe, Corneille, Boileau. (Hssay on Authors.) 

Sir John Evelyn, as we have seen, is favorable to the 
refining influences from France, particularly where they 
pertain to matters of learning or language. He men- 
tions in this connection the super-excellence of French 
libraries, both private and royal, over those of Great 
Britain. In a letter to Sir Peter Wyche, Knight, of 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 23 


June 20, 1665, Evelyn advocates several methods for im- 
proving the English language, among them: 

‘< . that some were appointed to collect all the tech- 

nical words; especially those of the more generous em- 
ployments: as the author of the Essaies des Merveilles 
de la Nature et des plus nobles artifices has done for the 
French.’’ 
Along these same lines of language study Sir John 
Howell offers an interesting account of the development 
of French, placing the beginning of its era of polish in 
the midst of the reign of Philip of Valois and mention- 
ing the help of Marot and of Ronsard. A reference such 
as this is all the more interesting as it is one of the rarest 
dealing with the pre-classic, non-dramatic authors. 

Sir Robert Howard, known to us thus far as Crites, in 
Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy, speaks of the con- 
ventions of the stage and of French influences upon 
them. 

‘‘The serious plays were anciently compos’d of 
speeches and choruses, where all things are related, but 
no matter of fact presented on the stage. This pattern 
the French do at this time neerly follow, only leaving 
out the chorus, making up their plays with almost entire 
and discursive scenes, presenting the business in rela- 
tions. This way has very much affected some of our 
nation who possibly believe well of it more upon the ac- 
count that what the French do ought to be a fashion, 
than upon the reason of the thing.’’ (Preface to Four 
New Plays, 1665.) 

Champion of the ancient classicists, he chooses against 
rhyme in theory, and adopts it in practice, defending 
himself with an argument that is worth volumes of com- 
ment on the literary trend of the times. 

‘But while I give these arguments against verse, I 
may seem faulty that I have not only writ ill ones, but 
writ any; but since it was the fashion I was resolv’d as 


24 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


in all different things, not to appear singular,—the 
danger of the vanity being greater than the error; and 
therefore I follow’d it as a fashion, though very far off.’’ 

We find Shadwell conforming to the unities, under the 
pressure of French authority: 

‘‘T have in this play, as neer as I could, observed the 
three unities of time, place, and action. . . I have here, 
as often as I could naturally, kept the scenes unbroken, 
which, though it be not so much practised or so well 
understood by the English, yet among the French poets 
is accompted a great beauty.’’ (Sullen Lovers, Preface.) 
Wycherly and Congreve refer to French standards and 
models for writing.*® 

The attitude of the nobility, influenced by France, and 
ready to receive her teachings, was quite favorable to the 
poetry, and in particular to the dramatic poetry, which 
France had made known. 


The opinions with which we have been dealing state 
but one side of the ease; and Restoration England was 
not unanimous in her unstinted admiration for France 
and French poetic conventions. Outside the immediate 
circle of the gallant court, France was not regarded in 
quite so kindly a light. To gather a conception of the 
general attitude from matters not literary, the French 
peasants were thought ‘‘seldom or never [to] arrive to 
any considerable fortune or competency, by their own 
wit or industry, as do many of our yeomen and farmers in 
England.’’! Politically France seems to have been feared. 

18 Wycherly quotes in French from Montaigne in the Epistle 
Dedicatory to the Plain Dealer, which is itself based on Le Misan- 
thrope of Moliére; and speaks of the French rules. Congreve, in 
his Poems, models The Peasant in Search of His Heifer on a tale 
of ‘‘Monsieur de la Fontaine.” 

1 John Evelyn, The State of France, Edition Upcott, p. 80. 
Again, (Ibid.) “As touching the plebeians or roturiers of France; 
truly I esteem them for the most miserable objects that one may 
likely behold upon the face of the earth; .. .” 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 25 


‘<., . her later accession of Bretagne, Guyenne, Nor- 
mandy (once the goodly portions of England) and Bour- 
gogne,... all of them under one Prince . . . by whose 
favor or spleen there was always a facile entrance for 
any potent stranger to disturb the rest of the Kingdom.’’ 
(Ibid. p. 84.) 

And again, ‘‘In fine, France is at present grown to that 
stature, so well planted and commodiously laid to itself, 
that (but for her own madness and feared fate of these 
times ...) in the reall interest and balance with her 
neighbors, it were high time she were now a little ob- 
served, and a non-ultra fixed unto her proceedings and 
future aspirations.’’ (Ibid. p. 87.) 

‘*Finally, they have a natural dread and hate to the 
English, as esteeming us, for the most part, a fierce, rude, 
and barbarous nation. . .”’ (P. 92.) It becomes evident 
that much of this type of criticism is inspired by an 
irritated patriotism. 

As we took note of Sir John Evelyn’s praising France 
as the ‘‘principal abode of a Gentleman,’’ so we find, 
by contrast, that Milton, in 1638, seems to have cared 
little either for France or for Paris, when he passed 
through, on his way to Italy. The most noteworthy 
event of the few days he spent in Paris seems to have 
been his meeting with Hugo Grotius, then minister 
from Sweden, through the kind offices of Lord Thomas 
Scudamore, ambassador from England. (Defensio Se- 
cunda pro Populo Anglicana, contra infamum Lrbellum 
Anonymum. vol. 5, p. 231.) 

In spite of her intellectual advancement, France was 
considered somewhat affected in matters of learning. 
Says Evelyn: 

‘‘Every great person who builds there, however quali- 
fied with intellectuals, pretends to his elaboratory and 
library; for the furnishing of which last he does not 
much amuse himself in the particular elections of either 


26 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


authors or impressions; but having erected his cases and 
measured them, accords with a stationer to furnish him 
with so many gilded folios, so many yards of quartos and 
octavos by the great, till his bibliotheke be full of vol- 
umes. And yet some of them, both have excellent books, 
and are very polite scholars; but the Noblesse do not 
naturally so addict themselves to studie as the gown- 
men do.’’ (Ibid. pp. 81, 82.) 

As to the stability of the French, Evelyn believes it to be 
‘‘the manner of this nation . . . to be as soon weary of 
their new inventions, as children are of rattles.’’ 

Dryden suggests an anti-French prejudice to be gen- 
eral among English judges of French music, in connec- 
tion with his praise of Monsieur Grabut, who wrote the 
score for Albion and Albans: 

aioe . amongst some English musicians and their 
scholars (who are sure to judge after them) the imputa- 
tion of being a Frenchman, is enough to make a party 
who maliciously endeavor to decry him.’’ ? 

In the field of poetry, as well, do we find this second 
current of criticism. As we have found the nobility ac- 
cepting and admiring French literary conventions, so we 
shall see the burghers, of whom Samuel Pepys is an able 
representative, no less sincerely disliking them. Pepys’ 
opinions were indeed different from those of the Court. 
He attended a performance of Heraclius on September 
5, 1667, and found it ‘‘a good play’’; he discovered much 
that he liked in a translated version of Le Menteur 
(November 28, 1667), but otherwise there is no evidence 
of his approving any of the French poetie fashions. 
His comment on Horace is that it is ‘‘a silly tragedy.’’ 
(January 19, 1668-69.) On June 23, 1663, he went 

‘‘Down to Deptford, all the way reading Pompey the 
Great, (a play translated from the French by several 
noble persons; among others, my Lord Buckhurst) that 

2 Albion and Albanius, Preface. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 27 


to me is but a mean play, and the words and the sense 
not very extraordinary.’’ 
The Cid fares little better: 

*‘December 1, 1662—To the Cockpitt, with much 
crowding and waiting, where I saw the Valiant Cid acted, 
a play I have read with great delight, but is a most dull 
thing acted, which I never understood before, there be- 
ing no pleasure in it.’’ 

During the summer of 1661, the French troupe of 
players then in London performed a French Comedy by 
an unknown author. Says Pepys in commenting upon 
this play: 

*“ August 30, 1661—Then my wife and I went to Drury 

Lane to see the French comedy; which was so ill done, 
and the scenes and company and everything also so nasty 
and out of order and poor, that I was sick all the while in 
my mind to be there. .. There being nothing pleasant 
but the foolery of the farce, we went home.’’ 
Pepys furnishes us with but one comment on rhyme, 
given in connection with his estimate of Dryden’s Indian 
Queen; ‘‘The play good, but spoiled with the rhyme, 
which breaks the sense.’’® 

Dryden, the burgher often cropping out in spite of 
his care for noble patronage, says: 

*‘T should not have troubled myself thus far with 
French poets, but I find our Chedreux ecriticks wholly 
form their judgments by them. But for my part, I 
desire to be judged by the laws of my own country; for 
it seems unjust to me that the French should prescribe 
here, till they have conquered. Our little Sonettiers 
who follow them, have too narrow souls to judge of 
poetry.’’ (All for Love, Preface.) 

Again, in Marriage a la Mode, says Doralice to Palgmede 

‘‘You are an admirer of the dull French poetry, which 
is so thin that it is the very gold-leaf of wit, the very 

3 Helen McAfee, Pepys on The Restoration Stage, p. 25. 


28 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


wafers and whipped cream of sense, for which a man 
opens his mouth and gapes, to swallow nothing; and to 
be an admirer of such profound dulness, one must be 
endowed with a great perfection of impudence and ig- 
norance.”’ 

Such wholly divergent currents of literary creed as this 
attitude, contrasted with that of the Court, explain the 
unsettled state of the Restoration drama, the conflict 
between the French and English standards of rule and 
structure. 

The chief objection to the unities is that they ean do 
no more than raise the degree of excellence of a good 
production ; but, that incapable of creating one, they are ~ 
vastly inferior to imaginative genius. 

‘‘By their servile observations of the unities of time 
and place, and the integrity of the scenes, they [the 
French] have brought on themselves that dearth of plot, 
and narrowness of the imagination, which may be ob- 
served in all their plays.’’* 

And again: | 

‘‘As for this other argument, that by pursuing one 
single theme they gain an advantage to express and 
work up the passions, I wish any example... would 
make it good; for I confess that their verses are to me 
the coldest I have ever read.’’ (Ibid. p. 57.) 

The theory of leaving the stage at all times occupied 
fares no better: 

‘‘In this ridiculous manner the play goes forward, 
the stage being never empty all the while: so that the 
street, the houses, and the closet are made to walk about, 
and the persons stand still.’’ (Jbid., p. 64.) 

Dryden very fairly attributes such divergences of dram- 
atic convention to differences of national genius, ‘‘For 
the genius of the English cannot bear too regular a 


4 Dryden, Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 63. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 29 


play ;-we are given to a variety, even to a debauchery of 
pleasure.’’ (Don Sebastian, Preface.)°® 

Sir Robert Howard attacks the unities upon the ground 
that they in no wise further the reality of a play. They 
forbid the portrayal of thirty-six hours’ action within 
the two and a half hours’ duration of the play itself; 
but, he continues, it is equally impossible to crowd the 
action of even five hours into the length of time it takes 
to act out a play, and improbability has no degrees.°® 

Let us turn to the question of rhyme viewed from a 
less favorable angle than the one we have already con- 
sidered. The long rhymed speeches of the French classie 
drama are criticised as being stilted, unreal declamations, 
since passion seldom expresses itself in long and ordered 
tirades. In comedy it is thought to be equally artificial, 
since the greatest pleasure there lies in the swift parry- 
ing of ready wit. 

‘“When the French stage came to be reformed by 

Cardinal Richelieu, those long harangues were intro- 
duced to conform with the gravity of a churchman. 
Look upon the Cinna and the Pompey; they are not so 
properly to be called plays, as long discourses of reason 
of state; and Polyeucte in matters of religion is as solemn 
as the long stops upon our organs.’’? 
Dryden offers an interesting solution for these existing 
differences, besides the sedate influence of the great 
Cardinal. The French, who are naturally of an ‘‘airy 
and gay temper,’’ like to make themselves serious at their 
plays, while the English, ‘‘more sullen,’’ come to be 
diverted. : 


5 “After all, it was a bold attempt of mine, to write upon a 
single plot, unmix’d with comedy; which, though it be the natural 
and true way, yet is not to the Genius of this nation.” 

—Dryden, Cleomenes, Preface. 

6 The Great Favorite, Preface. 1668. 

7 Dryden, Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 58. 


30 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Several times do we find expressions of a wearying 
or a dislike of rhyme. Dryden tells us, in the Prologue 
to Aureng-Zebe, that he 


“. . . grows weary of his long-lov’d Mistress Rhyme; 
Passion’s too fierce to be in fetters bound, 
And Nature flies him like enchanted ground.” 


Again, he writes to Godfrey Kneller: 


“. . . Goths and Vandals, a rude northern race, 
Did all the matchless monuments deface. 
Then all the Muses in one ruin lie, 
And rhyme began to enervate poetry.” 
—LEpistle to Sir Godfrey Kneller.8 


John Milton delivers himself of a thundering denun- 
ciation of rhyme. It is 

‘«'. mo necessary adjunct or true ornament of poem 
or good verse; in longer works especially: but the inven- 
tion of a barbarous age, to set off wretched matter and 
lame metre... it is... trivial and of no true musical 
delight, which consists only in apt numbers, fit quantity 
of syllables, and the sense variously drawn out from one 
verse into another; not in the jingling sound of like end- 
ings; ... This neglect then of rhyme so little is to be 
taken for a defect; (though it may seem so, perhaps, to 
vulgar readers) that it rather is to be esteem’d an example 


8In this connection it is interesting to consider the comments 
of Shadwell and the Earl of Mulgrave. 


“With what prodigious scarcity of wit 
Did the new authors starve the hungry pit? 
Infected by the French, you must have rhyme, 
Which long, to please the ladies’ ears, did chime.” 
—Shadwell, The Squire of Alsatia, Prologue. 


“For dances, flutes, Italian songs and rhime, 
May keep up sinking nonsense for a time. 
But that will fail which now so much o’errules, 
And sense no longer may submit to Fools.” 
—KEarl of Mulgrave, Essay of Poetry. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 31 


set, (the first in English,) of antient liberty recover’d 
to Heroick poem, from the troublesome and modern 
bondage of rhyming.”’ ® 
Another interesting expression of the more British side 
of the question is that of Edward Phillips. If the style 
be elegant and finished, any sort of rhymed verse is better 
dispensed with, for 
ae . the truth is the measure alone without any 
rime at all would give far more ample scope and liberty 
both to style and fancy than can possibly be observed in 
Pum, 7° 
Thomas Rymer condemns not only the French rhyme, 
but the language as well, as being unfit for nobler poetry. 
‘‘The French now onely use the long Alexandrins, and 
would make up in length what they want in strength 
and substance; yet they are too faint and languishing, 
and attain not that numerosity which the dignity of the 
Heroick verse requires, and which is ordinary in an 
English verse of ten syllables.’’ 
And again, ‘‘The French wants sinews for great and 
Heroick subjects, and even in love matters, by their own 
confession, is a very infant.’’ 1? 
Lord Roscommon, too, attributed French failure in poetry 
to the nature of the language. 


“Vain are our neighbors’ hopes and vain their cares, 
The fault is more their language’s than theirs.” 
(Essay of Translated Verse.) 


There is evident resentment of the dominance of 
French influences in English literature. Aphra Behn 
addresses Sir William Clifton as ‘‘... you, who in 
- spight of all the follies we import from France so much 


9 Milton, Paradise Lost, Book I. The Verse. 

10 Edward Phillips, Theatrwm Poetarum, Preface, 1675. 

11 Thomas Rymer, Preface to ‘Rapin, cited by Spingarn, Critical 
Essays of the XVIIth Century, pp. 166, 167. 


32 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


in fashion here, still retain and still maintain the good 
old English customs... .’’ (Miscellany, 1685.) And 
according to Shadwell: 

‘‘ After this restraint upon poets, there is little scope 
left unless we retrieve the exploded barbarism of fool, 
devil, giant, or monster, or translate French farces, 
which, with all the wit of the English added to them, 
ean scarce be made tolerable.’? (The Humorists, Pref- 
ace, 1671.) 

And finally, Sir George Etheredge, says: 
“. . . ’m afraid that while to France we go, 
To bring you home fine dresses, dance and show, 
The stage, like you, will but more foppish grow. 


Of foreign wares, why should we fetch the scum 
When we can be so richly served at home?” 12 


Where harsh judgments appear in no ordered form, 
in no regulated plan of attack, it becomes difficult to 
present them in any way other than a simple tabulation 
of those eminently French elements that seem displeas- 
ing to English minds. Although Dryden praised the 
French language in comparison with English, he re- 
marks its inability to measure up to the Italian: 

‘<. . . and the French, who now cast longing eyes to 
their country, [i.e. Italy] are not less ambitious to pos- 
sess their elegance in poetry and musick; in both they 
labour at impossibilities. ’Tis true indeed, they have re- 
formed their tongue and brought their prose and poetry 
to a standard; the sweetness and the purity is much 
improved by throwing off the unnecessary consonants 
which made their spelling tedious, and their pronuncia- 
tion harsh: but after all, as nothing can be improved 
beyond its own species or farther than its original Nature 
will allow, . . . so neither can the natural harshness of 
the French, or their perpetual ill-accent be ever refin’d 


12 Ktheredge, The Man of Mode, or Sir Fopling Flutter, 1676, 
Prologue. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 33 


into perfect harmony like the Italian.’’ (Albion and 
Albanius, Preface.) 

French wit is likewise severely judged. Says Dryden, in 
the Preface to An Evening’s Love, after having acknowl- 
edged borrowing the plot from Thomas Corneille: 

‘*T have farther to add, that I seldom use the wit and 
language of any romance or play which I undertake to 
alter; because my own, (as bad as it is) can furnish me 
with nothing so dull as what is there.’’ 

As for French humor, we find that: 

‘though they have the word humeur among them, yet 
they have small use of it in their comedies or farces; 
they being but ill imitations of the ridiculum, or that 
which stirred up laughter in the old comedy.’’ ** 

The French are further criticised, to continue the 
enumeration, for their over meticulousness and affected 
politeness. According to Dryden again: 

‘‘The writing of prefaces to plays was probably in- 
vented by some very ambitious poet, who never thought 
he had done enough. Perhaps by some ape of the French 
eloquence, who uses to make a business of a letter of 
gallantry, an examen of a farce; and, in short, a great 
pomp and ostentation on every trifle. This is certainly 
the talent of that nation, and ought not to be invaded by 
any other. They do that out of gaiety which would be 
an imposition to us. 

‘“We may satisfie ourselves with surmounting them in 


13 Hssay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 74. As a final example of Dry- 
den’s feelings on French wit we have the following: 


“And may those drudges of the stage whose fate 
Is damned dull farce more dully to translate, 
Fall under that excise the state thinks fit 
To set on all French wares, whose worst is wit. 
French farce, worn out at home, is sent abroad, 
And, patch’d up here, is made our English mode.” 
—Conquest of Granada, Prologue. 


34 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


the scene, and safely leave them those trappings of writ- 
ing and flourishes of the pen, with which they adorn the 
borders of their plays... .’’ (The Tempest, or The 
Enchanted Isle, Preface.) ** 

As for the affected politeness, Dryden continues: 

‘*Yet in this nicety of manners does the excellency of 
French poetry consist: their heroes are the most civil 
people breathing; but their good breeding seldom ex- 
tends to a word of sense: all their wit is in their cere- 
mony; and they want the genius which animates our . 
stage; and therefore ’tis but necessary, when they can- 
not please, that they should take care not to offend. But, 
as the civilest man in the company is commonly the dull- 
est, so these authors, while they are afraid to make you 
laugh or ery out of pure good manners make you sleep. 
They are so careful not to exasperate a critick, that they 
never leave him any work .. . for no part of a poem is 
worth our discommending where the whole is insipid.”’ 

(All for Love, Preface.) 

French plays are criticised for their want of strong 
character building. 

‘* After all, it is to be acknowledged, that most of those 
comedies, which have been lately written, have been 
ally’d too much to farce: and this must of necessity fall 
out till we forbear the translation of French plays: for 
their poets, wanting judgment to make or maintain true 
characters, strive to cover their defects with ridiculous 
figures and grimaces.’’ (An Evening’s Love, Preface.)* 


14 Again, “You see how little these great authors did esteem 
the point of honour, so much magnified by the French, and so 


ridiculously ap’d by us. ... I shall never subject my characters 
to the French standard; where love and honour are to be weighed 
by drams and scruples.” —Essay of Heroic Plays. 


15 In the Preface to @dipus Dryden censures Corneille for mak- 
ing Theseus, and not Cidipus the hero of his tragedy of the same 
name. 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 35 


Finally Dryden observes that only the very meanest of 
eustoms leave France for English use: 

‘¢. . . for the French, I do not name them for it is 
the fate of our country-men to admit little of theirs 
among us, but the basest of their men, the extravagances 
of their fashion, and the frippery of their merchandise.’’ 
(Rival Ladies, Epistle Dedicatory. ) 

In addition to these opinions regarded as an inde- 
pendent critical force, quite separate from any asso- 
ciated ideas of parallel English conventions, there exists 
that adverse criticism of French poetic customs which 
found itself in immediate connection with a comparison 
of similar English poetic customs. The spirit of patriot- 
ism animating these expressed comparisons causes the 
French to be judged far more unfavorably than they 
are in any expression of independent judgment. Let us 
compare Dryden’s foregoing views on the respective 
merits of French and English with the following: 


“Their tongue, [the ‘Gauls’] enfeebl’d, is refin’d too much, 

And like pure gold, it bends at every touch: 

Our sturdy Teuton yet will art obey, 

More fit for manly thought, and strengthened with allay.” 
—LHpistle to Mr. Motteua. 


Dryden ’s criticisms that deal solely with the structure 
or origin of French plots, are less severe than those in 
which he comments upon the dislike of his countrymen 
for ‘‘barren French plots,’’ or those in which he estab- . 
lishes a comparison between this barrenness of the 
French, and the copiousness and variety of the English 
manner. 

French regularity is often judged in terms of such a 
comparison, and the first example we shall consider offers 
a peculiar admission for one attacking rule. 

‘‘First ... we have many plays of ours as regular 
as any of theirs, and which, besides, have more variety 


36 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


of plot and characters; and secondly . . . in most of the 
regular plays of Shakespeare or Fletcher, (for Ben 
Jonson’s are for the most part regular) there is a more 
masculine fancy and greater spirit in the writing than 
there is an any of the French.’’ (Kssay of Dramatic 
Poesy, p. 66.) 

Again: 

‘*. , . as he has given us the most correct plays [Ben 
Jonson] so in the precepts he has laid down in his 
‘discoveries’ we have as many and profitable rules for 
perfecting the stage as any wherewith the French can 
furnish us.’’ . 
And finally: 

‘‘Tf they content themselves, as Corneille did, with 
some flat design, which, like an ill riddle, is found out 
ere it be half proposed, such plots we can make every 
way regular, as easily as they; but whenever they en- 
deavor to rise to any quick turns and counterturns of 
plot, as some of them have attempted since Corneille’s 
plays have been less in vogue, you see they write as ir- 
regularly as we, though they cover it more speciously.’’ 
(Ibid., pp. 64, 65.) | 

On the question of barring scenes of horror from the 
stage, Dryden thinks: 

**. . . the French have reason to hide that part of the 

action which would occasion too much tumult on the 
stage and to choose rather to have it made known by 
narration to the audience.’’ This, he continues, is not 
feasible for the English, however, as they ‘‘ will scareely 
suffer combats and other objects of horror to be taken 
from them.’’ (Jbid., pp. 60, 61.) 
In conclusion he says that ‘‘. . . if we are to be blamed 
for showing too much of the action, the French are as 
faulty for discovering too little of it.’’ (p. 62.) 

John Crowne remarks that, in the translation of An- 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 37 


dromache, ‘‘. . . there is all that there is in the French 
play, and something more, as may be seen in the last act, 
where what is only dully recited in the French play, is 
there represented.’’ 76 

As a conclusion to these passages on rule, let us cite a 
section of Dryden’s Epistle to Mr. Motteuz: 


“Time, action, place are so preserv’d by thee, 
That e’en Corneille might with envy see 
The alliance of his triple unity.” 


The characters of Racine and Shakespeare are con- 
trasted to Racine’s disadvantage. 

‘‘The present French poets are generally accus’d that 

wheresoever they lay the scene, or in whatsoever the age, 
the manners of their heroes are wholly French: Racine’s 
Bajazet is bred at Constantinople; but his civilities are 
convey’d to him by some secret passage from Versaille 
into the seraglio.’’ (Dryden, Troilus and Cressida, 
Preface. ) 
He offers, in contrast, a study of Shakespeare’s Henry 
IV who is always in the proper role; when dealing with 
his son, he is first the father; and, while receiving his 
subjects, he is, before all else, the monarch. 

Dryden contrasts the dramatic capabilities of the two 
countries to the triumph of Great Britain. He believes 
that ‘‘. . . our English genius, incomparably beyond the 
trifling of the French in all the nobler parts of verse, will 
justly give us the preheminence.’’ *” 

And again: 

‘‘And this our forefathers, if not we, have had in 
Fletcher’s plays, to an much higher degree of perfection 
than the French poets can reasonably hope to reach. . . 
after all, I am of the opinion that neither our faults nor 


16 John Crowne, Andromache, Epistle to the Reader. 
17 Albion and Albanius, Preface. 


38 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


their virtues are considerable enough to place them above 
us.’’ (Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 59.)*® 

After this general summing up of the respective dram- 
atic potentialities of the two countries, Dryden proceeds 
to measure the excellence of individual plays and au- 
thors: 

‘*Corneille himself, their arch-poet, what has he pyro- 
duced except The Liar, and you know how it was cried 
up in France; but when it came upon the English stage, 
. . . the most favorable to it would not put it in com- 
petition with many of Fletcher’s or Ben Jonson’s,”’ 

(Essay of Dramatic Poesy, p. 54.) 
It is the Earl of Roscommon who sums up the entire 
situation : 
“But who did ever in French authors see 
The comprehensive English energy? 


The weighty bullion of one sterling line, 
Drawn to French wire, would thro’ whole pages shine. 


For I’ll recant when France can shew me wit 
As strong as ours, or as succinctly writ.” 
—Essay of Translated Verse. 


We have already called attention to Samuel Butler’s 
Satire upon our Ridiculous Imitation of the French, and 
to his hostility towards the importation of French 
eustoms. There are further examples of the attitude of 
this eminent representative of the satire and burlesque 
of the period. He attacks Georges Scudéry at the end of 
his satire To a Bad Poet, and censures by ridicule the 
plays of the time (plays in ‘‘heroick’’ style, and much in- 
fluenced by the French classic stage) in his Repartees be- 
tween Cat and Puss. 

18 As further example, let us consider what Dryden says in his 
Epistle to the Earl of Roscommon; 

“The French pursu’d their [i.e., Italians’] steps; and 
Britain last, 
In manly sweetness all the rest surpass’d.” 


DRYDEN AND THE FRENCH CLASSIC THEATRE 39 


We may feel secure, then, in believing that a certain 
amount of the criticism unfavorable to the poetry of 
France was actuated by a conceivable patriotic fervor 
rather than an impartial weighing of values. Whether 
or not the same results would have been reached by such 
an investigation remains an open question. Differences 
of national genius, upon which must of necessity depend 
the norm of judgment, might account for such criticism, 
even without the conscious desire,on the part of the 
eritic to defend, or at least uphold, his own standards. 
But, to leave aside any speculation, one may say that the 
contemporary comments show that a comparative criti- 
cism is always more severe on the French than a more 
objective, independent one. 

We have seen that the majority opinion of the lead- 
ing party in Restoration England was favorable to the 
French poetry it judged. The adverse criticisms fall into 
two classes: independent judgments, which appear less 
representative of the taste of the times, and comparative 
criticisms, which are colored by a sentiment of defensive 
patriotism. Weighing the evidence on both sides, we 
may decide that, on the whole, Restoration England was 
favorable to French poetry, eager to receive it, and 
willing to accept it as its model. This partiality is 
clearly the result of the artificial political stimulus of 
the Restoration court, and, while it is the stronger of the 
two currents. of literary criticism of the time, is not 
representative of the true feeling of the British people. 


CHAPTER II 


THE EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 


WirtH the death of Charles II the dominance of the 
Court party and the authority of its tastes in matters 
literary diminished to a marked degree. There came into 
being a literary public which took its standing from the 
value of its judgments rather than from any social or 
political rank. Authorship grew less precarious. Favor 
and influence sought those who were able to wield a 
trenchant pen, and nobles and people alike valued and 
sometimes feared their views. In proportion as dilet- 
tantism waned, literature established itself as a career. 
Richard Steele fared better than Samuel Butler. After 
1695 the press of England became free, and journals 
conveyed to the many what had formerly been offered 
by individual authors to the lettered few. The amazing 
rapidity with which these journals and ‘‘couriers’’ came 
into being attests the growth of the reading public, and 
the literary worth of some of the most popular ones bears 
witness to the state of development of this group. 

In addition, then, to the criticism with which we have 
been occupied, we shall have to consider the judgments 
of this increasing reading public, as it is represented 
through the journals of the first quarter of the eighteenth 
eentury. Before, however, studying the detailed criti- 
cisms on French poetry uttered at this time, we may note 
several important changes in attitude. There is less 
formal criticism devoted to the poetry of France. We 
find no consideration of French poetic conventions as 
minute and thorough-going as was that accorded them 

40 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 41 


by Dryden, for example, through the person of Lisideius. 
The eriticisms which we do find, are fragmentary, and, 
for the most part, given almost as asides in connection 
with some other matter; usually, as before noted, in 
comparison with some parallel British institution. An- 
other point of difference is directly dependent upon lit- 
erary conditions as they developed in France; criticisms 
gradually cease to be contemporary with the work criti- 
cised. The period of the Restoration showed us several 
instances where plays were produced in -Dublin and in 
London within a very few months of their appearance in 
Paris. With the end of classic production, however, 
France put forth but little poetry, and still less of actual 
merit; with the result that critics of poetry were forced 
to content themselves with the material already at hand. 

The general attitude of the early journals towards 
France itself is by no means unfavorable. Addison hails 
France among the “‘politest nations of Europe’’? and 
praises the King of that country for continuing its fine 
traditions in printing. Several letters addressed to the 
Guardian by English travellers in France laud the beauty 
of the public buildings, and speak kindly of the people, 
who are so ‘‘talkative and courteous’’ ? that a stranger is 
quite ashamed not to learn their language. Another 
letter to the same paper presents a comparison between 
the French and the English, where France fares well. 
**. . . if the French do not excel the English in all the 
arts of humanity, they do at least in the outward expres- 
sions of it. And upon this, as well as other accounts, 
though I believe the English are a much wiser nation, 
the French are undoubtedly much more happy.’’* The 
Tatler * pays a tribute to French art in praising Lebrun’s 


1The Spectator, No. 367, Thursday, May 1, 1712. 
2 The Guardian, No. 104, Friday, July 10, 1713. 

3 Guardian, No. 101, Tuesday, July 7, 1713. 

4 Tatler, No. 8, April 26, 1709. 


42 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


picture of the Battle of Porus, and its excellent repro- 
duction of the very spirit of the scene. | . 

In the matter of politics the English are, quite natur- 
ally, British first, but remain fair withal in their judg- 
ments of the French. The Guardian® in a series of 
issues presents unprejudiced accounts of Madame de 
Maintenon and of Colbert’s advice to the King. Aside 
from one poem against Louis and his not accepting Brit- 
ish peace terms,® the Jatler, too, is just and fair in its 
view of France, and states political news as fact, without 
comment or hatred. The Hxaminer, no doubt the most 
Tory of all the papers under consideration, presents an 
openness of mind that is remarkable for contemporary 
criticism, even, perhaps, considering the fact that the 
Tory ministers were striving to secure peace with France. 
We find there stated that ‘‘The people of England have 
a natural aversion to the French’’* .. . and again: 

‘“This nation has been so long engaged in war with the 
French that some of our unthinking Britons have con- 
tracted a kind of personal malice against them; never 
considering that if our country be ruined, it is perfectly 
indifferent to us whether it be done by the French, the 
Dutch, the German, the Turk, the Devil, or the Pope.’’ 
([bid., No. 87, Thursday, August 14, 1712.) 
Again, issue Fourteen of this journal (March 6, 1711) 
refers to the Dauphin as “‘. . . likely to succeed in a few 
years to the greatest kingdom in Europe,’’ and issue 
Thirty-nine (August 28, 1712) states that the French 
have ever been honorable enemies, having offered an 
advantageous peace, and never having prevaricated nor 
falsified. The Spectator refers to the suppression of 
of duelling as ‘‘. . . deservedly one of the most glorious 

5 Nos. 46, 47, 48, May 4, 5, 6, 1713; No. 50, May 11, 1713. 

6 Tatler, No, 24, June 3, 1709. 

7 Examiner, No. 3, Thursday, August 17, 1711. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 43 


parts of the present king’s reign,’’ § and praises Richelieu 


both as statesman and as literary patron. 

‘‘Cardinal Richelieu’s politics made France the terror 
of Europe. The statesmen who have appeared in that 
nation of late years, have, on the contrary, rendered it 
either the pity or the contempt of its neighbors. The 
Cardinal erected that famous academy which has car- 
ried all the parts of polite learning to the greatest 
height.’’ (No. 305, February, 1711-12.) 

The customs of France greatly influenced those of 
England in matters of fashion and habit as well as of 
literature. France was the ‘‘ fountain of dress,’’ English 
ladies designing their toilettes after those of the model 
puppets or dolls that came dressed from Paris. The 
very existence of this leadership must serve as the most 
valuable criticism in its favor, since expressed opinion 
seems rather to resent it. 

‘*. .. I could heartily wish that there were an act of 
Parliament for prohibiting the importation of French 
fopperies’’ says the Spectator, for English women re- 
ceive “‘very strong impressions from that ludicrous 
nation.’’ (Ibid., No. 45, April 21, 1711.) 

The decrease in French fashions is regarded as one of 
the beneficial results of the war. 

In a later issue, ([bid., No. 104, June 29, 1711) Hughes 
comments on women who wear a habit with breeches for 
riding. ‘‘The model for this Amazonian hunting habit 
for ladies, was, I take it, first imported from France, 
and well enough expresses the gaiety of a people who are 
taught to do anything, so it be with assurance.’’ French 
dancing, however, is admired in Budgell’s appreciation 
of a dancing teacher’s entertainment. ® 

‘*.. . l was very much pleased and surprised with that 
part of his entertainment which he called French danc- 


8 Spectator, No. 99, Saturday, June 23, 1711. 
9 Spectator, No. 67, May 17, 1711. 


44 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


ing. There were several young men and women, whose 
limbs seemed to have no other motion but purely what 
the music gave them.’’ 

French manners and customs fare badly indeed at the 
hands of these early-journal critics. To begin with the 
French tongue itself, ‘‘the copiousness of that tittle- 
tattle language’’?° derives its nature from the over- 
garrulousness of those who speak it. ‘‘It is certain that 
the light talkative humour of the French has not a little 
infected their tongue, which might be shown by many in- 
stances.’’11_ We find several references to the French 
inclination to talkativeness, not least among them the 
Tatler’s account of the frozen speeches, from Sir John 
Mandeville’s expedition into the territories of Nova 
Zembla. ‘*. .. We went to the French cabbin, who, to 
make amends for their three weeks’ silence, were talking 
and disputing with greater rapidity and confusion than 
I ever heard in an assembly, even of that nation.’’ (No. 
254, November, 1710.) A general summing up of the 
traits ascribed to the French by these early-journal com- 
mentators reveal their vanity, the freedom of their con- 
versation, the ‘‘fantastical’’ conduct of their women, and 
the levity of their behaviour. Influences such as these 
are resumed in the Spectator’s review of the unhappy 
circumstances attending the training of ‘‘Lewis of 
France’’: 

‘“Qstentation of riches, the vanity of equipages, shame 
of poverty, and ignorance of modesty were the common 
arts of life: the generous love of one woman was changed 
into gallantry for all the sex, and friendships among 
men turned into commerces of interest, or mere profes- 
sions, while these were the rules of life, perjuries in the 
prince, and a general corruption of manners in the sub- 


10 Freethinker, No. 150, August 28, 1719. 
11 Spectator, No. 135, August 4, 1711. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 45 


ject were snares in which France has entangled all her 
neighbors.’’ (No. 139, August, 1711.) 


Such influences on English custom are regretted. 

‘«'.. I would... reduce these airy exorbitancies of 
custom . . . not by running too much upon the airy 
phantastick custom of the French, and devoting our 
whole time to our passions, impede the nobler designs of 
life.’ ? 

And finally: ‘‘. . . France has infected all the na- 
tions of Europe with its levity . . . as liveliness and 
assurance . . . are the qualifications of the French na- 
tion, the same habits and customs will not give offense to 
that people which they produce amongst those of our 
country. Modesty is our distinguishing character, as 
vivacity is theirs.’’ ** 

Another source of regret is the influx of Huguenots 
who, no doubt, caused these traits to become still more 
firmly rooted in British soil. Mist asks, for example, 
‘Are we not overrun with French valets de chambres, 
perriwig makers, taylors, cooks, . . . perfumers . 
who came here to starve an abundance of English 
families?’’ (Miscellany Letters, No. 53.) The Britons 
are exhorted to quit these pernicious habits for the 
simpler customs of their own stock, as they existed . 
‘before the British gallantry lost its genuine lustre and 
innocence in the dissolute manners of a neighboring na- 
tion, which (some years past) succeeded in corrupting 
the pleasures and politics of Europe.’’** The same 
paper remarks, on another occasion, that ‘‘. . . I wish 
I could persuade them to restore the plain, honest good 
breeding of their fore-fathers, and to value the manly 
frankness of a true Briton, before the slavish politeness 

12 Nathaniel Mist, Miscellany Letters, No. 101. 


13 Spectator, No. 435, July, 1712. 
14 Freethinker, No. 78, December 19, 1718. 


46 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


of a Frenchman.’’*® France itself, however, continued 
to find favor with the nobles, who completed their educa- 
tion by a visit there, regarding Paris quite as Evelyn 
did, as the most desirable place for a Cavalier’s training. 
The Freethinker alone admires the French philosophical 
turn of mind and lauds for their independent thought, 
the brave spirits of France ‘‘ . . . [who] now strive to 
vindicate their liberty in religious matters.’’ 7° 

While it is important to see the way in which France 
was regarded from all points of view by the critics we 
are considering, it is of far more interest to us to study 
the literary influences by themselves. 

Mist’s Letters still speak of a ‘‘modish French educa- 
tion.’’ +7 Of thirty-three books mentioned by the Spec- 
tator as forming a lady’s library, seven are French,** and 
a catalogue proposed by the same paper for a lady’s 
reading, contains the Secret Treaties and Negotiations of 
the Marshal d’Estrades, Bayle’s Dictionary (on the ad- 
vice of Jacob Tonson), Pharamond, and Cassandra of 
Calprenéde.?® Finally, Sappho and Anacreon were 
known through French translation as well as English. 
The education of French women is on the whole much 
admired. Says the Preethinker: 

‘‘It was likewise very fashionable among the French 
ladies, till of late, to apply themselves to knowledge; and 
several treatises of philosophy were written, for their 
instruction, in their native language. And shall our 
females, who have copied most of the French levities to 
admiration, not attempt to rival their neighbors in one 
excellency?’’ (No. 147, August 17, 1719.) 

15 No. 24, June 13, 1718. 

16 Freethinker, No. 56, October 3, 1718. 

17 Miscellany Letters, No. 89. 

18 These seven are Astrea, The Cyrus, The Five Comforts of 
Matrimony, Father Malebranche’s Search after Truth, Clelia, 


Cassandra, and Cleopatra. Spectator, No. 37, April 12, 1711. 
19 No. 92, August 17, 1719. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 47 


The journals under consideration contain references 
in abundance to French authors and philosophers, both 
contemporary and older. These writers are mentioned 
either without comment, or are cited with praise. Some 
of the criticisms are extremely favorable; none are de- 
rogatory. The Tatler says, for instance, that he will 
make use of the ‘‘late act of naturalization to introduce 
what I shall think fit from France. The use of this law 
may, I hope, be extended to people the polite world with 
new characters, as well as the kingdom itself with new 
subjects. Therefore, an author of that nation, called La 
Bruyére, I shall make bold with on such oceasions.’’ 
(No. 9, April 28, 1709.) 

Again, the same paper describes La Bruyére’s Satire 
on the French as ‘‘one of the most elegant pieces of 
raillery and satire which I have ever read.’’*° There 
are, in this way, references that indicate a friendly ac- 
quaintance with Montaigne, Rabelais, Scaliger, the Port- 
Royalists, Voiture, Descartes, Malebranche, Fénelon, 
Pascal, Bouhours, Rapin, Bossu, the two Daciers, de la 
Motte, Fontenelle, and Boileau. It will be noted that 
these are for the most part writers of prose, and, at the 
most, of criticisms on poetry. We have evidence that 
French criticisms on the dogmas of poetry were well re- 
eeived. The Spectator thinks that the fable of an epic 
poem should be filled with ‘‘the probable and the mar- 
vellous . . . as the French eritics choose to phrase 
it.”’*1 The Guardian favors French regularity for the 
greater orders of poetry. 

‘|. , some famous French critics, who have written 
upon the epic poem, the drama, and the great kinds of 
poetry, which cannot subsist without great regularity; 
but [it] ought by no means to be required in odes, 


20 No. 57, August 19, 1709. 
21 No. 315, March 1, 1711-12. 


48 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


panegyrics, and the like, which naturally admit of great 
liberties.”? (No. 12, March 25, 1713.)*? 

There is a tendency, however, as we have seen in the 
earlier English-French comparisons, to abuse the French 
for the very reason of this critical leadership. 

‘“A few general rules extracted out of the French 
authors with a certain cant of words has sometimes set 
up an illiterate, heavy writer for a most judicious and 
formidable critic.’’ 7° 

And finally, says the Tatler: ‘‘. . . I could never 
read any of our modish French authors or those of our 
own country, who are the imitators and admirers of that 
trifling nation, without being for some time out of 
humour with myself, and at everything about me.’’ 
(No. 108, December 16, 1709.) 

Daniel Defoe often refers to French learning, and ex- 
presses the thought that England might do well to pat- 
tern herself upon the French model in this particular. 
It is an interesting fact, further, that in Part Two of 
Robinson Crusoe, by this ultra-Protestant English dis- 
senter—even a more striking figure to be voicing 
Opinions not unfriendly to France than Dean Swift, a 
church of England clergyman—the most sympathetically 
drawn character is a French priest. The following quo- 
tation, although it deals primarily with learning, and 
translated works of a scholarly order, shows the high 
place in which so stock-British a thinker held French 
culture: 

‘‘In this very thing the King of France outdoes all 
the Princes of Europe, where such encouragement is 
given to learning, that all useful books in the world now 


22 Further we find that “Milton has... filled a great part of 
his poem with that kind of writing which the French critics call 
the tendré [sic] and which is in a particular manner engaging 
to all sorts of readers.” Spectator, No. 357, April 19, 1712. 

23 Spectator, No. 291, February 2, 1711-12. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 49 


speak French, and a Man may be an universal Schollar, 
read Virgil, Horace, and Ovid, and all the antient poets; 
Cicero, Plato, Epictetus, Aristotle, and all the antient 
Philosophers; St. Athanasius, St. Augustine and all the 
primitive Fathers; Plutarch, Livy, and all the antient 
Historians, and yet neither understand a word of Greek 
or Latin, and pray, let us examine if the press has been 
restrained to the absolute Power of a Licenser or Reviser, 
on the contrary, all the liberty and encouragement im- 
aginable has been given to the Press, all the Abbies and 
publick Libraries in the kingdom are oblig’d to take one, 
and when any author has publish’d an: extraordinary 
piece, the King himself has thought fit to reward him 
with a Maenificence, peculiar to the pride and state of 
the French court. But this liberty has been the life 
of learning, and ever since Cardinal Richelieu erected 
the Royal Academy, no nation in the world ever fiour- 
ished in learning like them.’’ (An Essay on the Regula- 
tion of the Press. Anonymous. London, 1704, p. 9.) 
As a final step in the preparation of the early journal 
eriticism of French poetry let us consider the views 
expressed on Boileau, poet, critic, and law-giver of the 
standards of classic poetry in France. Gaston Paris 
considers criticisms of him less an estimate of an indi- 
vidual author’s achievement, than an appreciation of 
French taste and influence in general, asserting itself 
through one of its most characteristic representatives.** 
While, as we shall see, an estimate of Boileau is by no 
means synonymous with a survey of the criticisms ut- 
tered on French poetry, yet it is helpful to study them 
together, the more limited study of Boileau aiding as an 
24 “Tidée que les étrangers ont eue de Boileau et qu’ils ont 
traduite chacun 4 sa maniére, selon son génie, et selon les besoins 
intellectuelles de son pays, ils l’ont prise d’abord dans l’opinion 
que les compatriotes du poéte avaient de lui. Ce n’étaient pas les 


doctrines de Boileau, c’était le gofit francais qu’on cherchait dans 
VArt Poétique.’ Gaston Paris, Boileau, Paris, 1892. 


50 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


index of the attitude in which the larger subject was 
regarded. 

As a critic Boileau is ranked with the foremost of the 
classic school. We find several statements such as the 
following: ‘‘Juvenal, Monsieur Boileau, and all the 
greatest writers in almost every age.’’*®> ‘* Horace, 
Juvenal, Boileau, and indeed the greatest writers in al- 
most every age . . .’’7° Again, ‘‘I have a great esteem 
for a true critic such as Aristotle and Longinus among 
the Greeks; Horace and Quintilian among the Romans; 
Boileau and Dacier among the French.’’** And finally, 
‘<. . . by the examples of Horace, Juvenal, and 
Boileau, and the best writers of every age, . . . the 
follies of the stage and the Court had never been ac- 
counted too sacred for ridicule.’’ *8 

When spoken of in connection with contemporary 
writers, Boileau maintains an equally high place. 
‘‘Among the little that I have read of the French 
poetry,’’ says Nicholas Rowe, ‘‘Monsieur Boileau seems 
to me without comparison to have had the finest and 
truest taste of the best authors of antiquity.’’*° And 
again, ‘‘ . ..IJ shall put my reader in mind of 
Boileau, the most correct poet among the moderns; not 
to mention la Fontaine, who by this way of writing is 
become more into vogue than any other author of our 
times.*° 

Arbiter of poetic dogma, Boileau is frequently cited as 
authority in the formulation of some English eritic’s 
view. Addison agrees with him that Virgil excels Tasso,** 


25 Mist, Letters, vol. II., Letter 66. 

26 Guardian, No. 137, August 18, 1713. — 

27 Spectator, No. 592, September 10, 1714. 

28 Ibid., No. 34, April 9, 1711. 

29 N. Rowe, Some Account of Boileaw’s Writings; Boileau in 
English. London, 1712, E. Sanger. 

30 Spectator, No. 183, September 29, 1711. 

31 Spectator, No. 5, March 6, 1710. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 51 


and uses the authority of the Lutrin ** as well as that of 
the Aeneid for his defense of Milton’s shadowy and im- 
probable characters (such as Sin and Death) in Paradise 
Lost. Upon other occasions, the Spectator admires the 
principles laid down by Boileau and Bouhours, that 
nothing can be beautiful that is not just, and that truth 
and good sense must be the groundwork of any piece of 
literature that is to endure. The same paper remarks, 
on the question of ‘‘mixed wit,’’ that ‘‘Monsieur Boileau 

. has everywhere rejected it with scorn. . .’’ % 

A quotation from the Art Poétique is used as motto 
for a Lover’s Letter in the Freethinker,** and the Tatler 
quotes Boileau’s portrait of a pedant as an example of 
excellent description.*® 

We have found but two adverse criticisms of Boileau, 
one commenting on his lack of passion in his translation 
of Sappho,** the other censuring his satires for their 
scathing criticisms of mankind in general.*’ 

Having thus prepared ourselves by a study of the at- 
titude of the period towards France, French literary and 
critical influences in general, and towards the law-giver 
of French poetic usages in particular, we are ready to 


82 Ibid., No. 273, January 12, 1711-12. —-33 Spectator, No. 62. 
34 “Telle qu’une bergére .. . 


Doit éclater sans pompe une élégante Idylle.” 
—No. 78, December 19, 1719. 
85“A pedant is wonderfully well described in six lines of 
Boileau” which he gives in French: 


“Un pedant enyvré de sa vaine science 
Tout herissé de Grec, tout bouffu d’arrogance 
Et qui de mille auteurs retenus mot par mot 
Dans sa téte entassés n’a souvent fait qu’un sot, 
Croit qu’un livre fait tout, et que sans Aristote, 
La raison ne voit goute, et le bon sens radote.” 
—No. 158, April 12, 1710. 


86 Spectator, 229, November 22, 1711. 
37 Ibid., 209, October 30, 1711. 


52 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


proceed to a consideration of the early journal criticisms 
of French poetry itself. 


* * * 


We have called attention to the fact that French 
poetry no longer calls forth the thorough-going criticism 
that it received during the reign of Charles II, when the 
French tendencies of the Court effected its decided popu- 
larity. From the more limited references to it, however, 
we can perceive the general attitude of the times towards 
French poetry, as it was expressed in the early journals. 

Although the poetry of France, along with other 
French manifestations, had ceased to enjoy its former 
favor, it still occupied a position that was hardly un- 
favorable. In commenting upon the adequacy of French 
as a poetic medium, the Mreethinker believes that ‘‘The 
French tongue is as soft, as numerous, as musical as the 
Greek; and far more natural; it is more regular than 
the Latin, and has neither its dryness nor affectation.’’ * 
The Guardian praises the excellence of French songs. 
‘“To do justice to the French, there is no living language 
that abounds so much in good songs,’’ ? both their genius 
and their tongue being admirably adapted to song 
writing. English songs in comparison with theirs are 
erowded with too much material. The Spectator, too, 
has a word of praise for the native French song. ‘‘I 
might likewise refer my reader to Moliére’s thoughts on 
this subject, as he expressed them in the character of the 
Misanthrope; but only those who are endowed with a 
true greatness of soul and genius can divest themselves 
of the little images of ridicule and admire nature in her 
simplicity and nakedness.’’ * 

We find unmistakable recognition of the influence 


1 No. 18, May 23, 1718. 

2No. 16, March 30, 1713. 

3 No. 85, June 7, 1711. 

We find further comment on French music. The same journal 
speaks of “. ..a noble hymn in French, which Monsieur Bayle 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM o3 


which which the stage of France had exerted upon that 
of England. According to John Dennis, in one of his 
tirades against Richard Steele, ‘‘The Romans had very 
few plays that were worth one farthing but what they 
borrowed from the Grecians, as you and your deputy 
Governor [Colley Cibber] borrow from the French.’’ + 
He mentions Les Précieuses Ridicules, Le Menteur, Le 
Cid, and Tartuffe as having been successfully turned into 
English, and continues: ‘‘ You and your deputy Governor 
will go on to borrow from the French, and continue to 
rail at them.’’ <A letter to the Tatler speaks of French 
dancers’ and harlequins’ having been at one time more 
popular on the London stage than the English actors 
themselves.> And again, ‘‘The diversion of one of our 
stages ran so low last season, that the company was 
forced to call in to their assistance a troop of French 
strollers.’’ ° 

French rules are commented upon, though in nothing 
like the manner in which Lisideius undertook to defend 
them. Addison recommends to his countrymen ‘‘ The ex- 
ample of the French stage, where the kings and queens 
always appear unattended, and leave their guards behind 
the the scene. I should likewise be glad if we imitated 
the French in banishing from our stage the noise of 
drums, trumpets, and huzzas... .’’7 

Before considering further evidence from the works 
has celebrated for a very fine one, and which the famous author 
of the Art of Speaking calls an admirable one... .” 

—No. 513, October 18, 1712. 

Upon another occasion there is praise of Lully for adapting the 
advantageous points of Italian music to the genius of the French, 
instead of imposing Italian music upon them.—No. 29. 

4The Characters and Conduct of Sir John Edgar. 

5 The Tatler, No. 193, July 10, 1710. 

6 The Anti-Theatre, No. 15, April 4, 1720. 

7The Spectator, No. 42, April 18, 1711. 

On Addison, cf. Beljame, pp. 314, 315. 


“A tout ce clinquant de mauvais aloi, il oppose les beautés 
plus solides du théatre grec et de notre théatre francais qu'il 


54 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


of John Dennis, we must remember that he was far more 
concerned with launching tirades against Richard Steele, 
than he was with actually upholding French tragedy, 
solely because of its merits. Thus, while Dennis’ views 
are very worth studying, they are quite as much based 
upon personal prejudice as are the English-French com- 
parisons to which we have already called attention. To 
return to his opinions, then: 

‘‘You say that in France they are delighted either with 
‘low and fantastical farces, or tedious and declamatory 
tragedies.’ How rarely this sounds from anyone now, 
who has himself brought their plays upon the English 
stage. . . . It is true, one of their own celebrated 
authors has accused Corneille of being sometimes a little 
declamatory; but neither he nor anyone before yourself 
has ever accused Racine of it. . . . I am very willing 
to allow that we have had tragie poets in England who 
have had more genius than the French. But it is not 
enough to have Genius: a man must have art too, which 
few of our tragic poets have had.’’ ® 

In another passage Dennis defends the use of the three 
unities and cites Roscommon as his authority. ‘‘ Heroic 
Love and The Orphan,’’ he continues, ‘‘are certainly two 
of our best tragedies; and they are certainly two of the 
most regular. The Fox, The Alchemist, The Silent 
Woman of Ben Jonson are incomparably the best of our 
comedies; and they are certainly the most regular of 
them all.’’ 

In commenting upon Richelieu, Dennis thus charac- 
terizes the French stage as it resulted from his influence: 
‘*. . . the stage began to revive with fresh beauty. The 
greatest wits and most excellent artists of the age were 
set to work on it; all obscenity and profaneness were 
devait lui-meme imiter, le jour of il voulut étre poéte tragique 


dans son Caton.” 
8 The Characters and Conduct of Sir John Edgar. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 55 


banished and thus its inward and outward excellence 
rose together.’’ ® 

As a negative example of the Spectator’s approval of 
the French doctrines that kept comedy and tragedy 
apart, we find a censure of the English custom: 

‘‘The tragi-comedy, which is the product of the English 
theatre, is one of the most monstrous inventions that 
ever entered into a poet’s thoughts. An author might as 
well think of weaving the adventures of Aeneas and 
Hudibras into one poem, as of writing such a motley 
piece of joy and sorrow. But the absurdity of these 
performances is so very visible, that I shall not insist 
upon it.’’ 7° 

It is chiefly John Dennis who defends the French stage 
against the charges of immorality made against it by 
Richard Steele. Says Dennis, ‘‘It is odd, that Sir John 
should never complain of the stage’s obscenity, till the 
French appeared among us; as if our own actors were 
to be indulged in a little innocent lewdness.’’ 14 He con- 
tinues, in the same paper: 

9 The Anti-Theatre, No. 3, February 22, 1719-20. 

10 No. 40, April 16, 1711. 

The same journal defends the light, even foolish epilogues to 
serious pieces, on the weight of French authority. “... every 
one knows that nation [i.e. the French] who are esteemed to have 
as polite a taste as any in Europe, always close their tragic 
entertainments with what they call a ‘petite piéce,’? which is pur- 
posely designed to raise mirth, and send the audience away well 
pleased.”—No. 341, April 1, 1712. 

11 The Anti-Theatre, No. 9, March 14, 1719-20. 

There is comment on the type of British entertainment that 
the above mentioned French companies supplanted. Says the 
Tatler, “It will be said that these are the entertainments [cock- 
fighting and the like] of the common people. It is true; but they 
are the entertainments of no other common people.” (No. 134, 
February 15, 1709.) 

And Mist’s Letters speak of “, . . the barbarous sport of bull- 
baiting, (too much in vogue here, even among the tender sex) 


which may possibly inspire men with a sort of brutish courage, 
and render them sturdy and untractable.” (Letter No. 30.) 


56 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


‘*T strongly suspect that he is angry with the absurdity 

of the French farce, as with the freedom of their lan- 
guage and action, without considering that our audiences 
are never so well pleased as when entertained with their 
extravagances.”’ 
A letter from Sir Andrew Artlove to Sir John Edgar ** 
states: ‘‘. . . I shall only en passant observe that all 
he says against the French stage is either foolish, im- 
pertinent to his purpose, or utterly false.’’ 

As regularity of form has thus far been considered 
the salient trait of the French drama, both by those at- 
tacking its rigidity, and by those defending its polish, it 
becomes indeed interesting to consider a group of eriti- 
cisms that praise the content of the French classics, 
dwelling upon their animating spirit and inherent sim- 
plicity. 

Says the Spectator,'? ‘‘I must observe that our English 
poets have succeeded much better in the style than in the 
sentiments of their tragedies, and indeed, in those of 
Corneille and Racine, though the expressions are very 
great, it 1s the thought that bears them up, and swells 
them. For my own part, I prefer a noble sentiment that 
is depressed with homely language, infinitely before a 
vulgar one that is blown up with all the energy and 
sound of expression.’’ 

Again, according to the Guardian, ‘‘the perfect sub- 
lime’’ rises from a combination of the thought contained, 
the words used, and the harmony of the phrases. 
‘*He [i.e., Boileau] produced an instance of this perfect 
sublime in four verses from the Athaliah of Monsieur 
Racine.’’** In a letter to Mist, there is another reference 

12 February 27, 1719-20. 13 No. 39, April 14, 1711. 

14 No. 117, July 25, 1713. The verses in question are the fol- 
lowing: 

“Celui qui met un frein 4 la fureur des flots, 

Scait aussi des mechants arréter les complots. 


Soumis avec respect 4 sa volonté sainte, 
Je crains Dieu, cher Abner, et n’ai point d’autre crainte.” 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 57 


to the passage in question.*® ‘‘Reading the tragedy of 
Athaliah by Racine, I was charmed with the beauty, so 
natural to that author.’’ He then ventures a translation 
of these lines, ‘‘without pretending to rise to the graces 
of the original.’’ 7° 

Finally, the Spectator praises Moliére for his ‘‘in- 
herent simplicity of thought.’’ (No. 70, May 21, 1711.) 

Thus we see that while there is still much comment 
that is favorable to the poetry of France, it is largely a 
matter of preference as such, without overmuch weighing 
or judging of elements, in a critical manner. There are 
but few penetrating discussions on dramatic conventions, 
and none on character building or the use of rhyme. 
What statements we find on French poetry, are expressed 
more as personal opinions, rather than criticisms that 
find their origin in any norm of impartial judgment. 

In the criticisms that are unfavorable to French poetry 
we are again able to distinguish the two tendencies of 
independent criticism, and the comparative judgments 
that contrast parallel English and French institutions. 
' The result, too, is quite the same as the one we noted in 
the foregoing section; comparative criticisms judge the 
French more severely. In the early journal comments 
that we are considering, the proportion of this compara- 
tive criticism over the independent is greater than it was 
in the period we have left, with the result that the entire 
body of unfavorable criticism seems greater than it did 
in this preceding study. 

Considering the independent criticisms first, we find 

15 No. 64, and signed F. J. 

16 As further example of the high regard in which Racine was 
held, Mist describes an imaginary assignment of places in Hades 
to contemporary Letterati, where “certain insipids” receive a less 
severe sentence because of “. . . our excellent translations of the 
Andromache of Racine, Strada’s Nightingale, and Sappho’s Odes. 
(Letter 83.) 


58 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


two references to poetry that is not dramatic. The 
Guardian comments on Pastorals :*7 

‘‘The French are so far from thinking abstrusely, that 
they often seem not to think at all. It is all a run of 
numbers, common-place descriptions of woods, floods, 
groves, loves, etc. Those who write the most accurately 
fall into the manner of their country ; which is Gallantry. 
I cannot better illustrate what I would say of the French, 
than by the dress in which they make their shepherds 
appear in their pastoral interludes upon the stage.’’ 

The Spectator refers to that type of gallant poetry 
called the ‘‘bouts rimés,’’ where the rhyme words are 
given and the sense of the poem must be built up to suit 
them. He comments on it by saying: 

‘‘T do not know any greater instance of the decay of 
wit and learning among the French, which generally fol- 
lows the declension of Empire, than the endeavoring to 
restore this foolish kind of wit. . . . The first occasion 
of these bouts-rimés made them in some manner ex- 
cusable, as they were tasks which the French ladies used 
to impose on their lovers; but when a grave author 
[i.e., Ménage] ... tasked himself, could there be any- 
thing more ridiculous?’’ 38 

The balance of the opinion expressed has to do with 
dramatic poetry. To such a degree is this true that John 
Dennis, in stating that the French genius in general has 
neither the force nor the sublimity of the English, speaks 
immediately of the dramatic manifestation of this genius, 
through the rules of the theatre, with no indication of its 

17 No, 28, April 13, 1713. 


18 Further, he gives the example of constructing a poem to fit 
the following rhyme words: 


Ibid, No. 60, May 9, 1711. 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 59 


being but a limited example of his original statement. 
He asks ‘‘. . . whether the rules are not props and sup- 
ports to the weakness of the French genius?’’?® Sir 
Richard Steele, director in chief of the Drury Lane 
theatre which suffered an epoch of unpopularity when 
some French players came to London as competition, is 
uncompromisinely anti-French in his views. He cen- 
sures the regularity animating their plays, and the prin- 
ciple of keeping comedy and tragedy apart. 

‘‘In France they are delighted either with low and 
fantastical farces, or tedious, declamatory tragedies. 
Their best plays are chiefly recommended by a rigid 
affection of regularity, within which the genius is 
cramped and fettered, so as to waste all its force in 
struggling to perform a work not to be gracefully 
executed under that restraint; they fall into the absurd- 
ity of thinking it more masterly to do little or nothing 
in a short time, than to invade the rules of time and 
place, to adorn their plays with greatness or variety: 
thus they are finical, and mechanic, when they would 
highly please; and when they labour for admiration, they 
have it for performing what they might have better de- 
served, if they had neglected.’’ ° 
Clearly, it is the French regularity that is the chief 
contention between the French and English poetic 
schools. The Spectator, too, speaks of it: *} 

‘Murders and executions are always transacted be- 
hind the scenes in the French theatre; which in general 
is very agreeable to the manners of a polite and civilized 
people; but as there are no exceptions to this rule on the 
French stage, it leads them into absurdities... .’’ 
Steele reveals an interesting attitude in regard to the 


19 Characters and Conduct of Sir John Edgar. 

20 The Theatre, No. 2, January 5, 1719-20. This is the attack 
that Dennis answers in his defence of the French. 

21 No. 44, April 20, 1711. 


60 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY — 


theatre, believing it to be ‘‘. . . a pleasure more particu- 
larly adapted to the British genius; and the excellence 
of our writers in this kind shews that we are formed for 
it above any other people.’’??. In the first issue of this 
paper (Jan. 2, 1719-20) he says ‘‘. . . I prefer the pres- 
ent British stage to any other now in Europe.”’ 

This, then, forms the independent criticism of French 
poetry which we have found in these early journals. It 
is fragmentary and insufficient to warrant the drawing - 
of any conclusions, except as to the attitude of individ- 
uals; and it treats, even in this manner, only a few of the 
questions calling for discussion in regard to French 
poetry. The important subject of the rhyme is almost 
untouched. 7° 

The eriticisms based upon a comparative treatment 
of the subject, offer us more material, though we must 
regard much of it as the result of a certain patriotic 
ardor rather than that of unbiassed, scholarly analysis. 
To begin with the spirit animating the examples of lit- 
erary art, the Briton stands for the primitive expression 
of feeling, rather than for the corrective influence that 
“*polishes and repolishes.’’ Says the Spectator, ‘‘ There 
appears something nobly wild and extravagant in these 
great natural geniuses that is infinitely more beautiful 
than all turn and polish of what the French call a ‘bel 

22 The Theatre, No. 2, January 5, 1719-20. 

23 Addison objects to rhyme in English, but on another occasion 
speaks of its effectiveness. “I am therefore very much offended 
when I see a play in rhyme; which is as absurd in English, as a 
tragedy of hexameters would have been in Greek or Latin.” These 
are Addison’s views as expressed in the Thirty-ninth issue of his 
journal, appearing on April 14, 1711. Less than a year later 
(No. 285, Jan. 26, 1711-12) we find the following: “Rhyme, with- 
out any other assistance, throws the language off from prose, and 
very often makes an indifferent phrase pass unregarded; but 
where the verse is not built upon rhymes, there pomp of sound 


and energy of expression are indispensably necessary to support 
the style, and keep it from falling into the flatness of prose.” 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 61 


esprit,’ by which they would express a genius refined 
by conversation, reflection, and the reading of the most 
polite authors.’’ ** 

Steele’s displeasure at the newly arrived French 
troupes of actors results quite naturally in an utter con- 
demnation on his part of their methods of procedure. 
According to him: 

‘‘The French players have appeared on our stage to a 
crowded house of gentlemen and ladies: .. . Our play- 
house is put under the greatest discouragement that can 
possibly be, to encourage the facetious lewdness of a com- 
pany of French strolling mountebanks.’’ 7° 
Then follows a tirade against the indecency of this 
French troupe. Mist, too, expresses himself on these 
players: 

‘*... It was formerly thought a scandal to import 
French fashions; but now our nation is famous through- 
out the world for wit and sense, as well as for polite 
solid learning, what will be said of us, if we prefer the 
French plays and actors to our own?’’ 7° 
*‘It is well known,’’ he continues, ‘“‘that the French 
theatre never produced one good tragedy well performed : 
. . . but we presume that no man of judgment will now 
compare either the French plays or actors with our own.”’ 
The Spectator takes exception to the humour to be found 
in the plays of France, saying that: 

*‘T remember the last opera I saw in that merry na- 
tion . . . Pluto, to make the more tempting figure, puts 
himself in a French equipage, and brings Ascalaphus 
along with him as his valet de chambre. This is what 
we call folly and impertinence; but what the French 
look upon as gay and polite.’’ *7 


24 No. 160, September 3, 1711. 

25 The Theatre, No. 21, March 12, 1719-20. 

26 Miscellany Letters, No. 1. 

27 No. 29, April 3, 1711. 

We have found further scattered examples of this spirit of 


62 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


The criticisms that compare French and English in- 
stitutions are in some degree better ordered and a great 
deal more vehement than were the views independently 
expressed; but no more convincing, perhaps, when we 
take into consideration that they are actuated by a senti- 
ment of patriotism and not by one of criticism. Alto-. 
gether, the unfavorable criticism of French poetry found 
in these early journals is valuable as an index of the 
feeling of the times towards this poetry expressed 
through individual preferences. It is of but little value 
as an element of criticism, for it neither condemns any 
one element in the poetry of France, nor does it suggest 
many ameliorations. We may do well to look upon it 
as personal opinions expressed on French poetry, rather 
than a formal criticism of it. 

Concluding our study of the early journal comment 
on French poetry, let us note, first, that the subject itself 
no longer calls forth the interest that it once did; and 
secondly, that the type of eriticism has changed. There 
is far less analysis and discussion of the elements that 
combine to make the poetry of France the force that 
it is; but, on the other hand, there is more expression of 
personal like or dislike, occasionally of obligation, with- 
out much reason or analysis. Orders of poetry other 
than the dramatic are at least touched upon even though 
it be but twice. On the whole, the favorable and deroga- 
tory criticisms seem fairly well balanced during this 
period, with the scale leaning a bit, perhaps, toward the 


rivalry in Cibber’s Dedication to Richard Steele, of Ximena, or 
the Heroic Daughter, (Mist’s Journal, Oct. 31, 1719). 


“Thus Colley Cibber greets his partner Steele, 
See here, Sir Knight, how I’ve outdone Corneille.” 


And again, in an apparent crusade against the influx of foreign 
words, the Spectator wishes that there were a law “... in par- 
ticular, to prohibit any French phrases from becoming current in 
this kingdom... .” (No. 165, September 8, 1711.) 


EARLIEST JOURNALS OF LITERARY CRITICISM 63 


side of the laudatory opinions. The strong French 
tendencies of the Restoration court could scarcely be al- 
together obliterated in so short a time. Yet certainly, 
the balance of public opinion no longer swings as mark- 
edly in favor of the French as it did during the reign 
of Charles; and the ever-increasing British reading public 
bids fair to bring with it an ever-growing taste for 
British material. This period is the most eminently 
British in character of the three we shall consider in this 
study. The first period brought the political stimulus of 
the Restoration; the one that we shall treat next, pre- 
sents the intellectual stimulus of the Classic movement, 
which we shall find to be equally foreign to the true 
British temper. The years at the beginning of the 
eighteenth century, then, represent the British genius 
least influenced by artificial pressure, although they of 
necessity look back upon the one current, and anticipate 
the other. In the words of the Spectator, ‘‘The English 
are the proudest nation under the sun,’’ 7° and are quite 
unwilling to admit the good in others; and again, ‘‘In 
our country a man seldom sets up for a poet, without 
attacking the reputation of all his brothers in the art.’’ *° 
The criticisms we have found are scattered, without much 
order or critical weight, and useful only to indicate the 
general attitude of the times. 


28 No. 432, July 16, 1712. 
29 No, 253, December 20, 1711. 


CHAPTER III 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 


ALTHOUGH the early journals of the eighteenth cen- 
tury afford us an interesting view of the more popular 
side of the question we are studying, it is to be remem- 
bered that these journals, dealing as they did with poli- 
tics, topics of current interest and social reform, could 
not treat with adequate detail any subject of a primarily 
literary nature. The more technical side of our ques- 
tion must therefore be sought in the specialized essays 
and discussions devoted to literary matters by writers, 
considered first as men of letters, and viewed quite apart 
from any role of politician or reformer. 

The attitude of these authors towards France in gen- 
eral may be kept in mind as a useful index of the nature 
of poetic criticism we may expect. Let us consider these 
views expressed by the most representative men of the 
time. Addison, though ever a true son of Britain,* 
remains fair and temperate in his judgments of France. 
He states, on the one hand, that the French are Eng- 
land’s most dangerous, implacable enemies, who, if they 
triumph, will reduce the British to the status of a lost 
people (The Present State of the War), and that the 
Hanoverian ruler is preferable to a Tory-pretender, for, | 
‘*., . we could never endure French sentiments, though 
delivered in our native dialect ...’’ (Freeholder, No. 

1 The Freeholder, No. 1; Dec. 23, 1715: “As a British free- 
holder, I should not scruple taking place of a French Marquis; 
and when I see one of my countrymen amusing himself in his 


little cabbage garden, I naturally look upon him as a greater 
person than the owner of the richest vineyard in Champagne.” 


64 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 65 


9). On the other hand, however, he refrains from any 
bitter polemics, and even praises France for her progress 
in certain arts.’ 

Quite the same may be said in regard to Dean Swift’s 
attitude. Confident as he is of Marlborough’s leading 
the English armies to victory, he declares ‘‘I do not love 
to see personal resentment mix with public affairs.’’ 
(Journal to Stella, Letter 38; Jan. 1, 1711-12). The 
same winter finds him looking forward to a peace with 
France, without any expressions of a victor’s glee, or 
triumph over the vanquished. Among his lists of great 
and admirable characters, he includes ‘‘ Harry the Great 
of France’’ (Of Mean and Great Figures made by Sev- 
eral Persons) while among the ‘‘mean’’ lists he speaks 
of no Frenchman of greater importance than the Count 
of Bussy-Rabutin, guilty of no greater offense than that 
of having attempted to cut the gay figure of his youth, 
after a banishment of twenty years. 
~ Throughout Gulliver, Lilliput represents England, and 
the land of the Blefuscians, France, Gulliver’s escape 
to the latter country paralleling that of Bolingbroke to 
France in 1715.2 ‘‘And it must be confessed that from 
the great intercourse of trade and commerce between 
both realms, from the continual reception of exiles, which 
is mutual among them, and from the custom in each 
empire to send their young nobility and rich gentry to 
the other, in order to polish themselves by seeing the 
world, and understanding men and manners; there are 
few persons of distinction, . . . but what can hold con- 
versation in both tongues.’’ Englishmen of eminent 
rank, such as Lord Bolingbroke, and Matthew Prior 


2 Dialogue on Medals. III. “... the French medals come 
nearer the ancients than those of any other country, as it is 
indeed to this nation we are indebted for the best lights that have 
been given to the whole science in general.” 

3 Gulliver, Lilliput, Chap. 5, p. 55. 


66 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


show themselves to be thoroughly familiar with France. 
In Gulliver again we find one of the few expressions 
against France, when, in a political conversation between 
Gulliver and the Prince of Brobdignag, this royal censor 
criticises England harshly.* ‘‘My colour came and went 
several times with indignation, to hear our noble coun- 
try, the mistress of arts and arms, the scourge of France 
. . . the pride and envy of the world so contemptuously 
treated.’’ 

Charles Gildon, perhaps, is the most appreciative of 


France: 
“Such equal tempers happy Gallia knows, 
Such are the forms our kinder Heav’n bestows. 
Far from the clime where sultry suns arise, 
Far from the wintry north’s inclement skies, 
In the mid-space the queen of nations lies.” 
(Complete Art of Poetry.) 


The more vociferously anti-French views are those of 
Steele, which we have noted in a foregoing section; and 
those of Pope. Pope, as we shall later see, though he 
may himself put into practice a French literary prin- 
ciple, is readier to attribute this to almost any accident 
of British development, than to French influences. We 
find in his Hssay on Criticism, for instance: 


“Thence Arts o’er all the Northern world advance, 
But Critic-learning flourish’d most in France: 
The rules a nation, born to serve, obeys; 

And Boileau still in right of Horace sways, 
But we, brave Britons, foreign laws despis’d, 
And kept unconquer’d and unciviliz’d; 

Fierce for the liberties of wit, and bold, 

We still defied the Romans, as of old. 

Yet some there were among the sounder few, 
Of those who less presum’d and better knew, 
Who durst assert the juster ancient cause, 
And here restor’d Wit’s fundamental laws, 
Such was the Muse whose rules and practice tell, 
‘Nature’s chief master-piece is writing well.’ ” 


4 Gulliver, vol. 8; p. 60. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 67 


It seems a satisfaction to Pope to ‘‘despise’’ French 
rules, and adopt those of the Ancients. ® 

In matters non-political, France exerted a marked in- 
fluence on English fashions, manners, and customs, to the 
greater or less pleasure of the recipients. Addison com- 
ments on the French gallantry,® airiness of humour, and 


emptiness of talk. 

‘*. . . In France it is usual to bring their children 
into company, and to cherish in them, from their infancy, 
a kind of forwardness and assurance: besides that, the 
French apply themselves more universally to their exer- 
cises than any other nation in the world, so that one 
seldom sees a young gentleman in France that does not 
fence, dance, ride, in some tolerable perfection. These 
agitations of the body do not only give them a kind of 
mechanical operation on the mind, by keeping the animal 
spirits always awake and in motion. But what con- 
tributes most to this hight airy humour of the French, is 
the free conversation that is allowed them with their 
women, which does not only communicate to them a 
certain vivacity of temper, but makes them endeavour 
after such a behaviour as is most taking with the sex.’’ 
(Remarks on Italy.) 


And further, in describing a character very 4 la fran- 
eaise, ‘‘ His speeches were accompanied with much gesture 
and grimace. He abounded in empty phrases, superficial 
flourishes, violent assertions, and feeble proofs. To be 
brief, he had all the French assurance, cunning, and 
volubility of tongue... .’’ (The Trial of Count Tartf.) 


5 Again, from Windsor Forest: 


“Still in thy Song should vanquish’d France appear, 
And bleed forever under. Britain’s spear.” 


6 Freeholder, No. 4: “If any should allege the freedoms in- 
dulged to the French ladies, he must own that these are owing 
to the natural gallantry of the people... .” 

Remarks on Italy; “The Genevois have been very much refined, 
or, as others will have it, corrupted by the conversation of the 
French Protestants, who make up almost a third of their people.” 


68 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


He comments upon the English following the lead of 
French fashions of various orders, principal among them 
being those of dress, dance, and the kitchen.’ 

These frequently mentioned French influences received 
attention as well from Pope, who comments upon the 
levity and restlessness of the French.* (Memoirs of 
Martinus Scriblerus. vol. 6, p. 1386.) ‘‘There is one play 
which shows the gravity of ancient education, called the 
Acinetinda, in which children contended who could long- 
est stand still. This we have suffered to perish entirely; 
and if I might be allowed to guess, it was certainly first 
lost among the French.’’ Charles Gildon, the most 
favorable to France, because of his markedly pro-classic 
taste, perhaps, speaks of the influence of the ‘‘ punctillios 
of French breeding’’ (Laws of Poetry, p. 267), and, with 
St. Evremond, regrets the hold which Italian opera had 
taken in London. (Life of Betterton.) 

Some of the Cavaliers who had sought refuge in 
France, earlier in the seventeenth century, felt a second 
experience in direct contact with French thought cur- 
rents, when a considerable number of French Protestants 
fled for religious liberty to England, after the revocation 
of the Edict of Nantes. According to Dr. Canfield, whose 


7 Again (Tale of a Tub: Conclusion): “Well fare the heart of 
that noble Jesuit [Pere d’Orleans) ] who first ventured to confess 
in print, that books must be suited to their several seasons, like 
dress, and diet, and diversions; and better fare our noble notion, 
for refining upon this, among other French modes.” 

Tale of a Tub; “. .. for a certain lord came just from Paris, 
with fifty yards of gold lace upon his coat, exactly trimmed after 
the court fashion of that month. In two days all mankind ap- 
peared closed up in bars of gold lace.” 

8 As further instance: 

“The sturdy squire to Gallic masters stoop, 

And drown his lands and manors in a soupe. 

Others import yet nobler arts from France, 

Teach Kings to fiddle and make senates dance.” 
—The Dunciad, Bk. 4, lines 595-598. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 69 


thesis we have had occasion to cite before, Queen Anne’s 
reign marks the highest point in the influence of the 
French classic plays in England. Although French was 
widely known and used, translations into English of these 
classics were much desired, and proved useful in spread- 
ing broadcast a knowledge of the French-classic ele-. 
ments, so all-important in the great literary controversy 
about to ensue. The quarrel between the Ancients and 
the Moderns found its way across the channel early in 
the last decade of the seventeenth century. Although 
the anti-classic party was destined eventually to triumph 
in England, nevertheless the classicists stood their ground 
well, and were, if anything, more vociferous in their 
arguments. This controversy may be said to mark the 
beginning of the end of French literary influences, and 
the dawn of eminently British taste asserting itself with- 
out opposition.? The influence of Dryden, according to 
Dr. L. J. Wylie, leans more towards classicism, and there- 
fore towards French literary creeds, the only literary 
guides of his time being ‘‘the pole-star of the ancients, 
and the rules of the French stage amongst the mod- 
erns.’’?° Alexander Pope, representing the other ex- 


9L. J. Wylie, Hvolution of English Criticism, p. 57: “The defects 
and virtues of the English classicism had an almost equal share in 
defining the progress of the next century. Its characteristic ex- 
cellencies, the practicalness of its purpose, the definiteness of its 
thought, the lucidity of its expression were quickly perfected.” 

D. Canfield, Racine and Corneille in England, pp. 216-17: ‘“‘The 
dedication of La Thébaide, translated by Miss J. Robe, in 1723, as 
The Fatal Legacy, shows that the disfavor which was to fall upon 
later translations was already casting its shadow before.” 

1oL. J. Wylie, op. cit., p. 41: “In spirit and method, Dryden 
brought the scientific thought of his time to bear on criticism; 
but other elements of his work, more conservative and temporary, 
were preéminently distinctive of the Gallic School.” 

(Ibid. p. 34) Here is developed Dryden’s use of the preface 
influenced by the Hazamens of Corneille. The author judges 


70 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


tremity of this controversy in point of time, and, ac- 
cording to the same author ‘‘the very high priest of 
English classicism, accepts classic standards only to ig- 
nore them at will.’’ 

The classic struggle that took place, then, between 
Dryden’s day and that of Pope, with its immediate 
relation to French classic conventions, will form our 
main source for English criticism of French poetry. 
During this period the literary men of the day exerted 
a great influence on public taste. Addison’s comment 
on the Distrest Mother in the mouth of Sir Roger de 
Coverly ‘‘is very artfully contrived . . . to forestall all 
the objections which the average Englishman would raise 
to tragedy so formal and Gallic in its spirit’’ (Canfield, 
p. 154). Further, continuing the same writer’s comment 
on this translation, ‘‘No effort was spared by the Ad- 
dison-Steele coterie to launch triumphantly a man who 
had written a classical tragedy, which they were trying 
to introduce on the English stage... .’’™ 

The question of classicism against anti-classicism 
hinged mainly on the matter of rules for poetic, princi- 
pally dramatic, writings. That the British genius in- 
herently does not favor classic rules is evident by their 
fate. The artificial influences of the day, then, such as 
Dryden’s defense of rhyme as “the metrical creed of the Classical 
school.” 

(Ibid. 15) “It is significant of his relation to the old age and 
to the new that Dryden should couple the authority of the ancients 
with the rules of the French authors.” 

11 Canfield, op. cit., p. 223. [On Cibber’s Cesar, from Pompée, 
which was not a success.] “... it is a very interesting symbol 
of the average attempt of that period to put French tragedy on 
the English stage. A play of the Elizabethan school [Fletcher’s 
The False One] is forced into unnatural coalescence with one of 
the most classical of seventeenth century French tragedies, and 
the result is performed before an audience of the early Georgian 
period—a monstrous effort, whose failure is assured from the 
beginning.” 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 71 


the remembrance of Cavalier tendencies, and the thor- 
oughly classic education enjoyed by the more prominent 
of writers, may account for the fact that the greater 
names lend their weight to the side of classic rules, the 
schooling and disciplining of natural talent, and (with 
but few exceptions) the value of criticism.” 

Dean Swift speaks in favor of rhyme. In his Advice 
to a Young Poet he tells us that “‘. . . rhyming is what 
I have ever accounted the very essential of a good poet.’’ 
Ang again, ‘“‘ Verse without rhyme is a body without a 
soul (for the chief life consisteth in the rhyme) or a bell 
without a clapper... .’’1% Pope, the ‘‘high priest of 
classicism,’’ telis of his early acquaintance with a purist, 
Walsh, whose theories on the value of care and correct- 
ness in form so influenced Pope himself, that he was 
later able to write: 


“Then polish all with so much life and ease 
You think ’tis nature and a knack to please.” 
—Horace, Book Il, Ep. II. 


In the Dunciad he mentions a certain James Ralph, who 
‘was wholly illiterate, and knew no language, not even 
French. Being advised to read the rules of dramatic 
poetry before he began a play, he replied—‘Shakespeare 
writ without rules.’ ’’ Ralph, who, Pope tells us, devel- 
oped into a newspaper hack-writer, served as another of 
the object lessons that turned the great classicist in 
favor of the rules.** 
12 Swift, in The Battle of the Books, speaks of the malignant 
deity called Criticism, the child of Ignorance and Pride, who 
overflows with spleen, and gives wisdom to infants and idiots. 

13 Swift composed a poem, Bouts Rimés, on Signora Domitilla. 

14 Hssay on Criticism. Yet James Ralph was by no means as 
ignorant as Pope supposed. He is the author of many works of a 
literary and historic nature, and, directly as well as by his writ- 
ings, had no small influence upon Henry Fielding. Of interest 
to us is his Taste of the Town, or a Guide to all Publick Diver- 


72 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


“Learn hence for ancient rules a just esteem; 
To copy nature is to copy them.” 


Dependent on this schooling of genius through classic 
rules, is his next theory that the poet should be critic as 
well. He makes allowance, however, for the poetic licence 
accorded unusual abilities :** . 


“Great wits sometimes may gloriously offend, 
And rise to faults true critics dare not mend.” 


Classicist that he is, Pope shows but little feeling for the 
Elizabethan drama. ‘‘Till then [Ben Jonson’s time] 
our authors had no thoughts of writing on the model 
of the ancients: their tragedies were only histories in 
dialogue; and their comedies followed the thread of any 
novel as they found it, no less implicity than if it had 
been true history.’’ +° 

It is Charles Gildon who brings the classicism of 
France to bear as authority in his own pro-classic argu- 
ments. According to him, genius must have long school- 
ing and practice; for even Ariosto and Shakespeare, 
greatest of imaginative geniuses, fall short of Homer, 
Euripedes, and Horace ‘‘in the judgment of the learned 
and knowing, who alone can decide upon this head.”’ 
(Laws of Poetry.) He continues, later on: 


‘‘The noble author [Buckinghamshire] having fix’d 
the necessity of a genius in poetry proceeds to show that 
there is an equal necessity that this very genius to make 
it truly valuable, should be govern’d and regulated by 
judgment. 


As all is dullness when the fancy’s bad, 
So, without judgment, fancy is but mad. 


sions (London, 1731), a series of essays on music, poetry, dancing, 
mimes, audiences, masquerades, and athletic sports, revealing a by 
no means superficial erudution, and a cultivated appreciation. He 
too refers occasionally to French literary and critical standards. 
15 Hssay on Criticism. 
16 Preface to the Works of Shakespeare. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 73 


The doctrine of these verses is not only extremely judi- 
cious, but of the greatest importance to the perfection 
of poetry, especially in this nation, where a flash of the 
wildest fancy in nature generally goes down for the 
most excellent poetry.’’?” 


And again: 

“Of chosen words some take not care enough, 

And think they should be, as the subject, rough. 

This poem must be more exactly made, 
And sharpest thoughts in smoothest words convey’d.” 
(From Buckinghamshire’s Essay of Poetry.) 

Furthermore, the English tragedy writers have been 
guilty ‘‘not only of a breach of all the rules of Aristotle, 
but even of those of common sense.’’ Gildon upholds the 
unities, advocates the withholding of horrors from the 
stage, and offers the following definition of tragedy: 
“A Tragedy 1s therefore an imitation of some one serious, 
grave, and entire action, of a just length, and contain’d 
within the Unities of Time and Place... .’’ (Complete 
Art of Poetry, p. 222.) His conclusion to the most im- 
portant section of the Laws of Poetry, nevertheless, 
voices his doubt as to the success of his party. Their 
efforts, in the face of the ignorant and corrupt taste of 
the times, will be no more successful than ‘‘ washing the 
Ethiop.’’ 

Up to this point, Gildon’s classicism differs to no great 
extent from that of Pope. He strikes a new note, how- 
ever, in admiring the French, in their classicism, as the 
natural heirs and descendants of the ancients. His au- 
thorities for taste, literary standards, and poetie prin- 
ciples are Greece, Rome, and France. Concerning the 
necessity of schooling genius, he asserts that the success 
of Corneille himself came after his adoption of Aris- 
totle’s rules, and adds that: 


‘‘No man certainly can condemn the reason of what 
17 Laws of Poetry. On Satire, pp. 77-78. 


74 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


we find in French; and yet it is the reason of the thing, 
and not the language it is written in, that makes it valu- 
able. .. . What reason therefore has any man to object, 
as an odium, our consulting the French authors, when 
he, or his colleagues shall write like them? .. .’’ (Com- 
plete Art of Poetry, p. 114.) 


Concerning the rules that he himself advocates, he says: 


‘‘ ...I1 have borrow’d many of them from the 
French, but then the French drew most of them from 
Quintilian and other authors. Yet the Frenchman has 
improv’d the Ancients in this particular, by supplying 
what was lost by the alteration of custom, with observa- 
tions more peculiar to the present age.’’ (Life of Better- 
ton, Preface.) 


And finally, concerning the unities, which assure an 
artistic reproduction of nature, and the violation of which 
turn poets into poetasters, and destroy the fable of a 
tragedy, ‘‘which cannot subsist without them,’’ he con- 
tinues : 

‘‘Let us take France. ... Are the regular pieces of 
that people more valuable than those which are irregular, 
and on the contrary? Are not Boileau, Racine and the 
like more entertaining to them than Alexander Hardy, 
duBartas, and the like? I think all France will give the 
prize to the former; and if so, how have the rules injur’d 
the poetical productions of France?’’ (Complete Art of 
Poetry, p. 120.) 


He admires Boileau and Madame Dacier particularly, 
and turns to Racine’s Preface to Iphigénie as authority 
for leaving horrors unacted. (Complete Art of Poetry, 
p. 192.) The faults of French poetry, according to him, 
rest with the nature of the language, rather than with 
any lack of talent or art. ‘‘I must agree with his Lord- 
ship [Roscommon] that the French is soft enough, and 
perhaps may rival ours in that particular; yet certainly 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS fo 


English must be allow’d to be more copious, and more 
harmonious too than the French.’’ (Laws of Poetry, 
pp. 292, 293.) As culminating point in his admiration 
of the French classicists, he declares that: 


‘*Tf such enemies have arisen to the ancients in France, 
where there have been such eminent instances of good 
taste, it is no wonder that in England, where our taste 
is generally so bad, there should have been found men 
to appear in the same abandon’d ecause.’’ (Laws of 
Poetry, p. 11.) 


Gildon does not favor rhyme. It is necessary neither in 
long dignified epics, or tragedies, nor yet in shorter 
poems, interfering, at best, with the thought, grammar 
and diction of the passage where it occurs. In this 
particular he cites two passages from the Earl of Ros- 
common to support his view: 

“Of many faults rhime is (perhaps) the cause 

Too strict to rhime, we slight more useful laws.” 

(Ibid., p. 65.) 

And again: 

“At best a crutch that lifts the weak along, 


Supports the feeble, but retards the strong.” 
(Complete Art of Poetry, p. 328.) 


He adds, of his own accord, that Dryden’s use of rhyme, 
in The State of Innocence, renders it but weak and 
trifling in comparison with Milton’s unrhymed treatment 
of the same subject. Gildon makes no especial mention 
of French rhyme, as distinguished from the principle 
of rhyme in general. 

Before considering the actual opinions expressed on 
poetry at this time, let us stop a moment to see how 
Boileau was regarded. It is interesting to note the con- 
siderable amount of pro-classic opinion at this time, as 
compared with the views of a century later; for once 
the eminently British sentiment had asserted itself more 
completely, it turned with particular force against 


76 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Boileau. Addison manifests his approval of Boileau by 
comparing him to Horace.?® ‘‘ Horace knew how to stab 
with address, and to give a thrust where he was least 
expected. Boileau has nicely imitated him in this, as 
well as in other beauties.’’ John Oldham had imitated 
Boileau (in his satires and his Horation Art of Poetry) 
fully a generation before Addison and Pope. Among 
other interesting English works which reveal Boileau’s 
direct influence, are Matthew Prior’s famous Parody of 
Botleau’s Ode on the Taking of Namur; and translations 
of works of Boileau’s by John Ozell and John Oldmixon. 
Gildon cites him frequently as authority on the scope and 
form of the various genres treated in the Laws of 
Poetry and the Complete Art of Poetry. It is Pope 
however, who is most pronounced in his esteem of Boileau, 
an appreciation manifesting itself not only in occasional 
references and citations, but in open expressions of ad- 
miration.?® He writes to William Cleland, shortly after 
the appearance of the first edition of the Dunciad, 
‘<... Boileau, the greatest poet and most judicious 
eritic of his age and country, admirable for his talents, 
and yet perhaps more admirable for his judgments in 
the proper application of them... .’’ He says, in the 
Dunciad, ‘‘The persons whom Boileau has attacked in 
his writings, have been for the most part authors, and 
most of these authors, poets: and the censures he hath 
passed upon them have been confirmed by all Europe.’’ 7° 

18 Dialogue on Medals. 

19 The following is one of the exceedingly rare passages from 
Pope which might cast a slur on Boileau: (First Satire of Second 
Book of Horace, Imitated; Prefatory Word.) “Besides, he deemed 
it more modest to give the name of imitations to his satires, 
than, like Despréaux, to give the name of satires to imitations.” 

20 Letter to Dr. Arbuthnot, July 26, 1734: “You will not sus- 
pect me of comparing myself with Virgil and Horace, nor even 
with another court favorite, Boileau.” 


To a Noble Lord, Nov. 30, 1733: “Tho’ you observe, I am but 
a mere imitator of Homer, Horace, Boileau, Garth... .” 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 717 


He comments as well on Boileau’s influence, in the Essay 
on Satire (lines 489-444) : 


“More happy France; immortal Boileau there 
Supported Genius with a sage’s care: 

Him with her love propitious Satire blest, 

And breathed her airs divine into his breast: 
Fancy and Sense to form his line conspire, 

And faultless judgment guides the purest fire.” 


Having thus prepared ourselves by a study of the attitude 
of the times towards classicism and towards France’s 
ehief exponent of it, we are better ready to approach the 
opinions expressed on the poetry of France itself. 
Outside of the views found in the Spectator and the 
Guardian, Addison has but little of value to say on the 
poetry of France. We may notice too in passing, that 
the developing spirit of the eighteenth century,” with 
its interest in science and research, is beginning even 
thus early to divert from the field of poetry the attention 
of the majority of writers, with the exception of those 


21Jt seems rare at this time to find essays dealing with the 
arts, if not in a scientific way. We shall see that references to 
the poetry of France are concerned chiefly with questions of rule, 
or literary creed, and scarcely at all with the beauty of the poetry, 
regarded quite by itself. In the realm of science and criticism, 
on the other hand, we find many points of contact between the 
two countries, not least among these, the frequent use, in an 
English text, of French words. French methods of translation 
are spoken of, French learned treatises are referred to: French 
critics are not only mentioned, but frequently cited, chief among 
these being the two Scaligers, the Daciers, Rapin, Bossu, and 
Boileau. In the field of general reading other than poetry, we 
find an extensive acquaintance with Montaigne, Rabelais, Cyrano 
de Bergerac, Scarron, Moliére, Perrault, Charron, Descartes, Gas- 
sendi, Balzac, Voiture, de la Rochefoucauld, LaBruyére, Male- 
branche, Bayle, Fontenelle, and still later, Voltaire and Montes- 
quieu; and frequent references to French romances, and French 
writers in general. 


78 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


actively engaged and interested in the classic struggle. 
Swift has not much of interest on the subject. It is 
worth recording that the entire Journal to Stella, extend- 
ing from September 2, 1710, to June 6, 1713, contains 
not one mention of French poetry, dramatic or other. 
Steele’s views are those that we have considered in our 
study of the early journal comment. 

Pope, then, is the first of the critics of note to express 
himself without reserve on the poetry of France. Class- 
icist that he is, he cannot but admire the French classic 
school. ‘‘In putting me into a French dress,’’ says he, 
‘vou have not only adorned my outside, but mended my 
shape; and, if I am now a good figure, I must consider 
you have naturalized me into a country which is famous 
for making every man a fine gentleman.’’?? Of the 
earlier, non-dramatic poets, he mentions Ménage and 
Ronsard, although he considers the latter to have been 
in ‘‘utter darkness,’’ through lack of classic doctrines, 
no doubt; he prefers Racan’s lyric poems to his berger- 
ies, and praises Malherbe for avoiding the disagreeable 
hiatus.”3 

In regard to the poetic dramatists of France, Pope 
evidently admires them, though not without a tinge of 
regret that they do exceed the British in the production 
of works of art, if not in natural genius:** 

“Exact Racine and Corneille’s noble fire, 
Show’d us that France had something to admire. 


22 Letter to General Anthony Hamilton, Oct. 10, 1713, upon his 
having translated into French verse the Essay on Criticism. 

23 Letter to H. Cromwell, March 7, 1709: “...I could not 
think it possible at all times to be avoided by any writer [hiatus] 
till I found by reading Malherbe lately, that there is scarce any 
throughout his poems.” 

And again, to Walsh, Oct. 22, 1706: “If I am not mistaken, 
Malherbe of all the moderns has been the most scrupulous in 
this point .. .” (i.e., in avoiding hiatus). 

24 Ibid., note p. 267: “Mr. Waller . . . with the Earl of Dorset, 
Mr. Godolphin and others, translated the Pompey of Corneille, 
and the more correct French poets began to be in reputation.” 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 79 


- Not but the tragic spirit was our own, 
And full in Shakespeare, fair in Otway shone: 
But Otway fail’d to polish or refine, 
And fluent Shakespeare scarce effac’d a line.” 
Imitation of Horace, Bk. II, Ep. I. 


Again: (Ibid., II, 263, 266). 


“We conquer’d France, but felt our captive’s charms; 
Her arts victorious triumph’d o’er our arms; 
Britain to soft refinement less a foe, 

Wit grew polite, and numbers learn’d to flow.” 25 


In the prologue that Pope wrote for Addison’s Cato, he 
urges the British to strive to assume the place of emin- 
ence he would accord them: 

“Britons attend: be worth like this approv’d, 

And show, you have the virtue to be mov’d. 

With honest scorn the first fam’d Cato viewed 

Rome learning arts from Greece, whom she subdu’d; 


Your scene precariously subsists too long 
On French translation and Italian song.” 


In spite of his admiration for classic rule and order, 
however, his British pride does triumph over his literary 
ereeds when anything like a comparison is in view. In 
the conclusion to the Essay on Man, there is the follow- 
ing commentary in the notes, giving both a French trans- 
lator’s criticism on the Essay, and Pope’s reply: 


‘‘*The French are not satisfied with sentiments how- 
ever beautiful, unless they be methodically disposed: 
Method being the characteritsic that distinguishes our 
performance from those of our neighbors.’ It is enough 


25 Tbid. 
“Or dubb’d historians by express command, 
T’ enroll your triumphs o’er the sea and land, 
Be call’d to court to plan some work divine, 
As once for Louis, Boileau and Racine.” 


80 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


just to have quoted these wonderful men of method, and 
to leave them to the laughter of the public.’’ 


Nor.is Pope’s taste in verse forms essentially French. 
‘‘T would also object to the irruption of Alexandrine 
verses of twelve syllables, which, I think, should never 
be allow’d but when some remarkable beauty or propriety 
in them atones for the liberty... .’’ (Letter to Walsh, 
Oct. 22, 1706). 

To resume Pope’s views, then, he is an ardent classicist 
and as such, he is willing to admire the results of his 
creed wherever they may appear, even if it be in the 
poetry of France. It is evidently less an admiration of 
the poetic abilities of the French themselves, and re- 
garded quite by themselves, than of the continuation of 
classic tradition. 

This is the attitude of all the writers of the time who 
favor French poetry. The Duke of Buckingham, favor- 
able to the French poets in many respects,”® considers the 
French language in its very nature incapable of fine 
poetry. In a letter to Pope, he prefers the French 
translation of Homer in prose, ‘‘. . . because to see it 
done in verse was despaired of: I believe, indeed, from a 
defect in that language, incapable of mounting to any 
degree of excellence suitable to so very great an under- 
taking.’’ And again, speaking still of de la Motte, he 
considers him capable of being a good epic poet, ‘‘if the 
French tongue would bear it.’’ The fact that he does 
not assign adequate reasons for such a judgment appears 
to indicate that there were others who would understand 
his decision without further proof. 

Charles Gildon again is the one who expresses himself 
most favorably to the poetry of France;?" and his views 

26 Letter to Mr. Pope; “M. de la Motte... already deservedly 


famous for all sorts of lyric poetry.” 
27 Complete Art of Poetry, cited from Rowe, p. 141: 


“The French, in language pure, in sense polite, 
The willing reader to the task invite.” 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 81 


take on an added value when he declares his desire to be 
just, calling himself ‘‘too much of an Englishman’’ 
(Complete Art of Poetry, p. 232) to give other nations 
an advantage, did he not honestly believe it right to do 
so. He is evidently acquainted with French poetry 
before the seventeenth century, mentioning as he does, 
Marot and Pierre Larrivey: 


‘‘In Francis the First’s time, ’tis true Marot and 
others flourish’d by the encouragement of that Prince. In 
the year 1597 Peter 1’Ariveu publish’d comedies, written, 
as he tells us, in imitation of the ancient Greeks and 
Romans, and the modern Italians. After him in France, 
Alexander Hurdy [sic] attempted tragedy, and his 
works were published in 1625, and him, not long after, 
succeeded the famous Corneille.’’ *° 
Gildon praises the French drinking songs, saying: 
‘“... It is remarkable that the French, who are a 
much soberer people in the general, yet have produc’d 
better songs on drinking than we have done.’’ (Ibid; 
p. 176.) But his main interest and preference is the 
classic school. He tells us that: 


‘‘Father Rapin and Monsieur Hedeline, and the royal 
academy’s censure of the Crd, were the first who began 
to meddle with Aristotle in the French language, and 
gave rise to a good taste in France, to whom Monsieur 
Bossu succeeded, and perform’d to a miracle upon the 
epic poem; and in our days Monsieur Dacier has ex- 
ceeded all mankind upon Horace’s Art of Poetry, and 
Aristotle’s Poetics. Thus was a good taste establish’d 
throughout France.’’ (Laws of Poetry, p. 53.) 


From this and similar passages, we may gather that the 
English critics based the French preéminence solely upon 
their fidelity to classic doctrine, and not at all upon any 
superior poetic endowment. 

28 Complete Art of Poetry, p. 80. 


82 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Gildon staunchly defends the French theatre against 
the charges of Richard Steele—charges that we have al- 
ready considered in our study of the more popular Jour- 
nal criticism. In this attack upon Steele, without calling 
him by name, he speaks of him as ‘‘the mouth of a party 
and defender of a cause, that is only considerable for the 
number of its partisans.’’ (Laws of Poetry, p. 178.) 


‘‘The mouth of this popular party,’’ he continues, ‘‘is 
a certain gentleman who, by the contribution of the wit 
of his friends, and his own peculiar genius (if I may 
give it that name) in agreeable trifling, a few years since 
wrought himself into an opinion with the multitude, that 
he was an author of great importance, and consummate 
judgment, and made use of this vogue to run down and 
ridicule all art and science. . . . He speaks indeed mag- 
nificently of them both [Greek and Roman tragic poets] 
and would be thought only to attack the French stage, 
not considering that whilst he condemn’d the tragedies 
of France, for a point in which they exactly agree with 
those of Greece and Rome, he must inevitably involve 
those in the same condemnation.’’ 


We have considered in part the original attack of Steele 
(Cf. Chap. II, p. 59, of this study) ; let us see what re- 
mains for Gildon to refute.” 


29 Steele, The Theatre, No. 2, Jan. 5, 1719-20: “Nations are 
known as well as private persons, by their pleasures, and the 
general inclination cannot be understood by any circumstance so 
well as by their diversions. In France they are delighted either 
with low and fantastical farces, or tedious, declamatory tragedies. 
Their best plays’ are chiefly recommended by rigid affectation of 
regularity, within which the genius is cramped and fettered, so 
as to waste all its force in struggling to perform a work not to 
be gracefully executed under that restraint; they fall into the 
absurdity of thinking it more masterly to do little or nothing 
in a short time, than to invade the rules of time and place, to 
adorn their plays with greatness or variety: thus they are finical, 
and mechanic, when they would highly please; and when they 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 83 


Gildon undertakes to answer formally the charges of 
Steele against the classic stage of France. First, if the 
diversions of a nation are to be the index of its people, 
then the English will be regarded as ‘‘extremely ignor- 
ant’’ since their own spectacles are barbarous and scan- 
dalous, absurd, confused, and immoral. Steele’s state- 
ment that the French are delighted with low farce is 
‘‘absolutely false’’: and he offers as proof the plays of 
Corneille, but recently translated into English, and those 
of Moliére, ‘‘to the translation of which our English stage 
has been so much beholding.’’ Whereupon he accuses 
Steele of harboring an entirely false view of French 
tragedy in general, for Racine’s are neither tedious nor 
declamatory, : 


‘« . . but what he charges upon them is so far from 
being a defect, that it is the highest perfection. I mean 
their regularity, in which they are upon a foot with the 
Greek poets... .”’ 


This regularity in no way cramps genius, and is no 
hindrance to it: it by no means restrains Sophocles or 
Euripedes, who are the models of the French regularity. 
The next step is to defend doing ‘‘little in a short time,’’ 
because it is more masterly through its greater prob- 
ability, and far more reasonable than huddling a con- 
fused crowd of accidents together, which method, the 
English claim, gives variety. Variety, indeed, is so far 
from being rebellion against the rules, that it is only to 
labour for admiration, they have it for performing what they 
might better have deserved, if they had neglected.” After refer- 
ences to Spain and Portugal he continues, “Among us there is 
no part in human life, but in one play or other is represented with 
propriety and dignity, from the greatest prince to the meanest 
slave; and often the same great spirit is one character running 
through all the changes in fortune, etc.” 


84 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


be found in them. As for the greatness of a play’s being 
injured by a close adherence to the three unities, there 
is time enough to answer that when any of the ‘‘libertine 
interludes’’ attain the height of the regular pieces of 
Sophocles or Euripedes. As the final step in his proof, 
he gives, in English, the entire quarrel scene between 
Agamemnon and Menelaus (from the Iphigema of 
Euripedes) as substantial evidence of the value of the 
unities and other rules of classic creed. Although this 
defense is avowedly made as one of the French stage, it 
contains in reality nothing that is not dependent upon, 
or better, the result of, the classic elements of the French 
stage: and not a defense of some element essentially 
native in its development, as, for example, the rhyme or 
verse form. 

As we have already seen, Gildon advocates a strict 
adherence to the classic rules, and praises the French for 
carrying them out. He speaks, for instance, of the 
unities of time and place, and of the practice of evading 
them by causing houses and other immovable objects to 
be moved about, which ‘‘. . . involves the spectator in 
confusion, which is not always remov’d by the lame help 
of the painted scenes, the change of which is unknown to 
the present French stage, as it was to that of Athens.”’ 
(Laws of Poetry, Drama, p. 175.) Defending the prin- 
ciple of suppressing scenes of horror, he continues: 
‘«... The active or dramatic poem makes use of nar- 
ration to give an account of things not proper to be 
presented . . . the French tragic Poets indeed, after the 
reformation of their stage, have been pretty nice in this 
particular.’’ °° At another time, he praises Richelieu, 
the greatest statesman since Augustus, for bringing the 
French standards of poetry almost to the level of the 
Roman. In Gildon too, we find the unusual instance of 
an Englishman’s refusing to consider English poetry 

30 Ibid., pp. 206-7. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 85 


superior to French. In discussing Roscommon’s Essay 
of Translated Verse, he says that: 


‘*... tho’ I am as willing as any man to think well 


of my country, yet I must needs say, that the advantage 
we receive from this judgment [| Roscommon’s contrast of 
French and English poets] will not reach all our poets; 
as it will not be over all the French: for Boileau, I 
fancy, will very well bear an exception; and I am very 
sure, that Racine has excell’d most of our tragick 
writers.’ 31 

Gildon’s praise of French poetry alludes only to its 
classic features. He does not favor rhyme, nor the 
French verse form; nor is he enthusiastic about the 
poetic qualities of the language itself. He too, then is 
representative of the classicists who admire classic tradi- 
tion where they find it. Finding it in the classics of 
France, they admire her poetry, not for any glowingly 
excellent qualities of its own, but for continuing the 
ereed to which they hold. 

Impossible as it is to confine literary movements ex- 
actly within the limits of dates, we must, in studying the 
classic struggle of the early eighteenth century, consider 
as well the works produced on this subject during the 
last six or seven years of the decade immediately pre- 
ceding 1700. These studies, too, aid us in shedding light 
upon the manner in which French poetry was regarded 
in England. 

Besides those classicists whose opinions we have noted, 
there remain for our study Edward Bysshe, Thomas 


81 Another example of this rare tendency is furnished by Ed- 
mund Johnson, in the prologue to his Sultaness, translated from 
Racine’s Bajazet in 1717: 

“Why then should Britons, who so oft have broke 
The pride of Gaul and bow’d her to the yoke, 
Be blamed if they enrich their native tongue 
With what the Gallick Muse has greatly sung?” 


86 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Rymer, Sir Thomas Pope Blount, Sir William Temple 
and his valiant opponent William Wotton. Bysshe’s 
views are to be found in his Art of English Poetry, com- 
posed wholly for the bettering of English poetry, and 
little concerned with poetry in general. The work 
abounds in citations from the ancient classics, and from 
English authors. In the preface Bysshe gives us a clue 
to his views by citing Boileau,*? in his insistence on the 
necessity of absolute truthfulness in poetry. He deals 
not at all with dramatic poetry, confining himself to the 
rules for the composition of lyric and narrative poems. 
For these, he strongly advocates the use of rhyme, giving 
full and generous rules for employing it properly, and 
laying down as chief considerations, the ‘‘seat of the 
accent’’ and the pause, or hemistiche, dividing the line 
into two halves. Indeed, he appears to take for granted 
that poetry and rhyme are one; for in the forty pages 
devoted to the rules of verse forms, he allows thirty- 
seven for rules on rhyme, and a scant three for those on 
the ‘‘Pindaric Ode and Blank Verse.’’ He draws atten- 
tion to an inherent difference between the French and 
English rhyme schemes,** and in ‘‘heroick’’ verse favors 
the Alexandrine: 


‘“The verses of twelve syllables are truly heroick, both 


32 Preface: 
“Rien n’est beau que le vrai. Le vrai seul est aimable; 
I] doit regner partout; et méme dans la fable. 
De toute fiction l’adroite fausseté 
Ne tend qu’a faire aux yeux briller la vérité.” 
—Art Poétique. 


83 (Ibid., p. 24.) The Latins, he comments, including the Span- 
ish and Italians as well as the French, will not allow “that a 
rhyme can be too perfect”; and with such an end in view, they 
permit compounds of words to rhyme with the original words 
themselves, and the same word with the same spelling to be used 
in the rhyme, provided the sense is different. “But this is not 
permitted in our poetry.” 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 87 


in their measure and sound, tho’ we have no entire works 
compos’d in them; and they are so far from being a 
blemish to the poems they are in, that on the contrary, 
when rightly employ’d, they conduce not a little to the 
ornament of them... .’’ 


Thomas Rymer, like Pope, is first the classicist in his 
poetic views, and as such, he admires classic doctrines 
where he finds them. It is classicism he lauds in the 
poetry of France, and less, the poetry itself. It is he who 
evinces a most interesting knowledge of pre-classic poetry 
in France, his knowledge going back as far as the Roland. 
To prove the eminence of English poetry ‘‘notwithstand- 
ing the present flourish and ostentation oe the French 
theatre,’’ he declares: 


‘*. .. we find the British poetry to this day. . 
The First William came, singing Roland, to fight that 
decisive Battel which wan him England.’’ 


In the same spirit, and to the best of his knowledge, he 
corrects an error concerning the French singers that 
Richard Lionheart brought with him; he cites Roger 
Hoveden to the effect that King Richard 

*‘‘enticed over from France singers and jesters, to sing 
of him in the streets— | 

et de regno Francorum Cantores et Joculatores allexerate 
ut de illo canerent in Plateis, et dicebatur ubique quod 
non erat talis in orbe.’’ 

He continues, ‘‘That these songsters and jesters were 
brought from France is most false. France had no pre- 
tensions thereabouts in those days. Those countries were 
Fiefs of the Empire. Frederick I had enfeoffed Ray- 
mond Berenger of the county of Provence, Forcalquiers, 
and the places adjacent, as not long after, Frederick IT 
install’d William au courb nez, Prince of Orange, King 
of Arles and Vienne; which family had formerly pos- 
sessed Provence. As truly he might have said they were 


88 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


brought from Spain, for Idlefonso, King of Aragon, 
Count of Provence, Barcelona ete. had given and settled 
on his son this county of Provence.’’ (Short View of 
Tragedy, pp. 67, 68.) 

Apart from such patriotic digressions, Rymer is to a 
degree (and indeed, a degree greater than most of his 
contemporaries) acquainted with early French poetry. 
He cites a song of Jeffry Rudel’s in connection with a 
mention of the influence of Provencal poetic conven- 
tions (Ibid., pp. 71-72), and a passage from Villon 
de: Fey COG Rid 

Furthermore, he offers an interesting, (if not aadeat 
precise) account of the development of the French stage 
(Ibid., pp. 53-638). He refers to a company of 
‘*Strolers’’ presenting the Passion and other sacred 
scenes, in a manner ‘‘as to set all the audience laughing. 
Francis the First, by whose encouragement Letters had 
begun to flourish in France, and Poetry more particu- 
larly, by the means of Clement Marot (who then trans- 
lated the Psalms and sent abroad his Balades, which 
Campanella reckons to have ushered in Heresie) King 
Francis, I say, was much delighted, for want of better, 
with these Strolers...’’ Next he refers to Peter 
Larrivey; and ‘‘ After him Alexander Hardy attempted 
Tragedy, whose works were published ann. 1625. Not 
long after succeeded the famous Corneille, who began to 
write for the stage after Hardy’s model.’’ He lauds the 
example of encouragement given to the developing 
theatre by Richelieu, who fostered higher literary stand- 
ards by refusing to permit ‘‘Aucunes actions mal- 


84 “Se fusse des hoirs Hue Capel, 
Qui fut extrait de boucherie, 
On m’eut parmy ce drapel, 
Fait boire de l’escorcherie.” 


The same work of Rymer’s contains sundry references to 
Rabelais. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 89 


honnetes, ny d’user d’aucunes paroles lascives, ny a 
double entente, qui puissent blesser l’honnestete pub- 
lique.’’ *5 

In points of good taste, therefore, the French are delicate 
and commendable, and ‘‘The noble encouragement they 
met withal, and their singular application have carried 
them very far in the improvement of the drama.’’ 

Rymer praises the French for their adherence to the 
three unities, and quotes Corneille, (from the Examen 
de Mélite) as having discovered the unity of action 
through common sense. He praises their further intro- 
duction of classic elements in the form of Racine’s 
choruses.*®° The elements of French tragedy, however, 
that are not classic he treats with markedly less en- 
thusiasm. With a ‘‘wild-goose chase of romance in their 
heads . . . some scenes of love must everywhere be 
shuffled in, tho’ never so unreasonable.’’ The Greeks, 
furthermore, never turned tragedy into opera, nor al- 
lowed their love ‘‘to come whining on the stage to 
effeminate the majesty of their tragedy.’’ He is not 
in favor of the French use of rhyme, since the sense of 
the passage and not the sound should fill the minds 
of the listeners; and the verse form, the long Alexan- 
drine, with its middle-stop, is troublesome, along with 
the rhyme. 

Blount, too, manifests this classic-yet-British attitude. 
He declares, for instance, that since the Romans, ‘‘none 
have carried poetry so high in all points as the English 

.”?; and quotes from Dryden that the French dra- 
matic writers, depending upon a thin design, few 

35 Ibid., Epistle Dedicatory; Further, “The world, surely, other 
matters apart, owes much to Cardinal Richelieu for his encour- 
agement to the Belles Lettres. From thence we may reckon 
that we begin to understand the Epick poem by the means of 
Bossu; and Tragedy by means of Monsieur Dacier. . . .” 


36 ([bid., p. 1.) He is hopeful for new reformation since “. . 
in France they see the necessity of a chorus to their tragedies.” 


90 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


episodes, few personages, and less sublime thoughts; and 
following the ancients too closely in point of rule and 
order, do not excel the English; whereupon he fills out 
his essay by citing Rapin at nearly every turn, and 
Boileau almost as frequently, with Dacier well in evi- 
dence. He does, however, cite Dryden in praising 
French taste,?7 and comments upon the wide reaching 
influence of the French tongue: 


‘“Were our language as generally known to the world 
. as the French is now, her verses [Mrs. Philips’] 
could not be confin’d within the narrow limits of our 
islands.’’ *8 
Of non-dramatic poets, Blount prasies Marot;*® in 
speaking of the delicate writings of Anacreon, Catullus, 
Sappho, he says: 


‘‘These are all great Models of this character ; of which 
the French have only in their tongue Marot, Gentleman 
of the Bed-Chamber to Francis the First. He had an 
admirable genius for this way of writing; and whoever 
have been successful in it since, have only copied him.”’ 


And though he seems to favor Corneille, yet he takes his 
place among those who deem the French language too 
feeble and lacking in strength and sinew for fine tragedy. 
The over-long Alexandrine, the too-regular pause, and 
the use of rhyme contribute towards accentuating this 
natural inability. i 
Sir William Temple speaks of the polish and refine- 


37 On Poetry, p. 61: “Dryden says, it is worth our considera. 
tion, a little to examine how much the Hypercriticks of English 
poetry differ, in their dislike of heroick poetry, from the opin- 
ion of Greek and Latin judges of antiquity; from the Italian and 
French who have succeeded them; and indeed, from the general 
taste and approbation of all ages.” 

38 Characters and Censures (Mrs. K. Philips). 

89 Ibid., pp. 69, 70. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 91 


ment of the French language,* qualities, however, which 
detract from its former vigor. 


‘IT doubt it may have happened there,’’ he continues, 
““as it does in all works, that the more they are filled and 
polished, the less they have of weight and strength, and 
as that language has much more fineness and smoothness 
at this time, so I take it to have had much more force, 
spirit, and compass in Montagne’s age.’’ 


Though he leans toward the Ancients, yet he re- 
proaches the French for being ‘‘too exact and too strict 
in their rules, to very little purpose,’’ since the Ancients 
- need no improving upon, and since their additions have 
produced little that rivals the works of the Ancients 
themselves. Of the earlier poets, he mentions Ronsard 
as meeting much applause in his day. Of later dra- 
matists, he allows Moliére to stand as the only foreign 
writer possessing humour, in his famous discussion of 
the purely English qualities of this trait: but even 
Moliére ‘‘has too much of the Farce to pass for the same 
with ours.’’ (Of Poetry.) 

John Dennis, Steele’s valiant opponent, knows very 
well 


‘‘that we have greater geniuses in England than they 
have in France, and that we can shew better writers; but 
that they can shew more good writers than we, no man 
who knows them ean doubt.’’ (The Impartial Critick.) 


William Wotton, apparently Sir William Temple’s 
bitterest adversary in the Classic struggle, recognizes an 
improvement in the French language through Richelieu’s 
efforts, but deems it nevertheless unsuited to tragedy. 

40 Of Poetry; “. . . the French wits have for this last age been 
in a manner wholly turned to the refinement of their language, 
and indeed with such success that it can hardly be excelled, and 
runs equally through their verse and their prose.” 


92 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


Though the French, since Richelieu, ‘‘. . . have taken 
so much pains to make their language capable of all 
those beauties which they find in Ancient authors,’’ ** 
yet ‘‘The French language wants strength to temper 
and support the nobler parts of poesie ... though the 
French nation wants no accomplishment necessary to 
make a poet . . .’’*? He calls attention, further, to a 
difference in French and English rhyme schemes, ren- 
dering them unfit for the same orders of poetry, the 
French accenting their words, for the most part, on the 
last syllables, the English on the foregoing ones. 

Again we must conclude that any favorable leanings 
towards French poetry were caused by an artificial 
stimulus; the rise, at this time of pro-classic views. In 
this case, where the presence of classic rule is the very 
feature that recommends French poetry to its English 
judges, instead of being the reason for disapproval, we 
find it censured for its verse forms and rhyme, together 
with its fundamentally unpoetic medium of expression, 
which three factors represent the essentially native fac- 
tors in French poetry as opposed to classic influences. 

From our study of the criticism of French poetry from 
Dryden’s day through Pope’s, we may conclude that the 
underlying stock-British sentiment towards the poetry 
of France is not a heartily favorable one. The period of 
the Restoration, and that of the classic florescence, half 
a century later, are epochs of artificial stimuli, one po- 
litical, the other literary, which tended to sway the emi- 
nently British feeling from its normal course. The proof 
we have to offer for such a judgment is, first, the eventual 
triumph of anti-French poetic conventions, in spite of 
the temporary vigor of these two forces; and secondly, 
the underlying popular, as contrasted with the aristo- 
cratic or very learned currents of taste, manifesting 


41 Reflections on Ancient and Modern Learning, p. 46. 
42 Ibid, p. 53. 


THE ENGLISH CLASSICISTS 93 


itself during these periods of artificial stimulus. In the 
earlier time we find this element represented by a 
minority party of Pepys’ stamp; in the later, by the 
- journals, which, while never anti-French (this being 
due in many cases to the classic tendencies of their 
chiefs), were less sympathetic to French poetic conven- 
tions than were the specialized works of learned writers. 

The reasons for admiring French poetry, then, were 
first in the nature of political considerations, when 
French fashions of nearly every type rushed into Eng- 
land in attendance upon the returning court and the 
Cavaliers; and, secondly, literary reasons growing out of 
an artificial creed in poetry, rather than out of the heart 
of the people of England themselves through their own 
development. On the other hand, the main reasons for 
disliking the poetry of France were also, in the first 
place political. The intermittent feelings of hostility 
that had existed for centuries between the two nations 
would naturally tend to establish relations that could not 
be either cordial or admiring. Often, in the very periods 
we have been considering, a manifestation merely of 
fairness of judgment may be regarded as something 
unique. Along with these political considerations—for 
we cannot feel that these, however great their influence 
undoubtedly was, are solely responsible for differences 
of literary appreciation between the two countries—are 
those differences of racial genius and temperament which 
are difficult of explanation on any other grounds. The 
inherent genius of England that has asserted itself 
through Shakespeare and Milton, is undeniably a differ- 
ent genius (leaving out of the account any question of 
superiority) from that of Corneille and of Racine. And 
this difference must inevitably be taken into considera- 
tion in reaching the conclusion that in an estimate and 
appreciation of poetry, the English cannot be ardent ad- 
mirers of the French. The prevalent weight of expressed 


94 ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY 


literary criticism will naturally move with the current 
of the times in which it is expressed. Therefore, while 
we do find a considerable amount of criticism that is de- 
cidedly appreciative of the poetry of France, and while 
we must appraise it highly for all that it represents, we 
are not mistaken in interpreting it less as the representa- 
tion of true British feeling than as the resultant of 
exceptional national and individual conditions. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The books here indicated are only those which have 
actually furnished material in the preparation of this 
study. 

Bo LOL 


ADDISON, JOSEPH—Works, Excepting the Spectator; Collected by 
Mr. Tickell; N. Y., Durell & Co., 1811, in 6 vols. 

BALLARD, GEORGE—Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain; 
London, 1752. 

Brun, APHRA—Works; Edited by Montague Summers, London, 
Heinemann, 1915, in 6 vols. 

Biographia Britannica, or the Lives of the Most Eminent Persons 
who have flourished in Great Britain and Ireland, from the 
Earliest Ages down to the Present Times; Collected from the 
Best Authorities, both Printed and Manuscript, and Digested 
im the Manner of Mr. Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dic- 
tionary; London, Printed for W. Innys, W. Meadows, 
MDCCXLVII, in 6 vols., in folio. 

BLACKMORE, RicHARD—Poems ; Works of the British Poets, 1808- 
9, London. 

Biount (Siz) THomas Pore—De Re Poetica, or Remarks upon 
Poetry; with Characters and Censures of the Most Consid- 
erable Poets, whether Ancient or Modern; London, 1694. 

BorLeavu, NicHoLtas—Art Poétique; Edition Pellissier, Paris, 1887. 

Boye, (Str) Roger, EArt oF OrrERY—Dramatic Works, and a 
Comedy, As You Find It; By Charles Boyle, London, Dodsley, 
1739, in 2 vols. 

BuTLeR, SAMUEL—Genuwine Remains in Verse and Prose; with 
notes by R. Thyer, London, Tonson, 1759, in 2 vols. Same, 
with a selection from the author’s Characters ; London, 1827. 

ByssHe, Epwarp—The Art of English Poetry; eighth edition, 
London, 1737, in 4 vols. 

COLLIER, JEREMY—A_ Short View of the Immorality and Profane- 
mess of the English Stage; third edition, London, S. Keble, 
1698. 


95 


96 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


CoNGREVE, WILLIAM—Comedies; Edition of the English Classics, 
W. E. Henley, Chicago, 1895, Stone and Kimball. 

CORNEILLE, PIrRRE—@uvres; Edition Marty-Laveaux, Paris, 
Hachette, 1862-68. 

D’AVENANT, (Sir) WiL~LIAM—Dramatic Works, With Prefatory 
Memoir and Notes, London, 1872, Sotheran & Co. 

DEFOE, DANIEL—Robinson Crusoe; N. Y., Lovell & Co., 1884. 
An Essay on the Regulation of the Press (Anonymous) ; 
London, 1704. 

Downes, J.—Roscius Anglicanus, or An Historical Review of the 
Stage, from 1660 to 1706; London, 1886, Jarvis & Son. 

DRYDEN, JoHN—Dramatic Works; London, J. Tonson, 1725. 
Plays; London, 1701. Works; London, 1725. Works, Aldine 
Edition of the British Poets, London, 1843. EHssay of Dra- 
matic Poesy; Edited by T. Arnold, Oxford, 1889. Satire on 
the Dutch. Essay on Satire, with the Earl of Mulgrave. 
The Art of Poetry. 

Du Beiay, J.—Muvres ; Edited by Henri Chamard, Macon, 1908. 
Deffence et Illustration de la Langue Frangaise; Edited by 
Humbert, Paris, Garnier, 1914. 

ETHEREDGE, (SIR) GEORGE—Plays and Poems ; Edited by A. Wilson 
Verity, B.A., London, 1888, J. C. Nimmo. 

EVELYN, (Sir) JoHn—Memoirs; Diary and Correspondence; Hd- 
ited by W. Bray, London, 1827, Calburn, in 5 vols. The State 
of France as it Stood in the Ninth Year of this Present Mon- 
arch, Louis XIV; Edited by Upcott, London, 1825, 

FIELDING, Henry—WSelected Essays; Edited by Gerould, N. Y., 
Ginn & Co., 1905. 

FARQUHAR, GEORGE—Dramatic Works; Edited by A. C. Ewald, 
London, 1892, J. C. Nimmo, in 2 vols. 

GILDON, (SiR) CHARLES—Complete Art of Poetry; London, 1718, 
in 2 vols. Laws of Poetry; London, 1721. Life of Betterton; 
London, 1710. 

HoweELL, JAMES—JHpistole Ho-Eliane; The Familiar Letters of 
James Howell, Esq.; Divided into Four Books, ninth edition, 
London, 1726. Same; London, 1892, Edited by J. Jacobs. 

LANGBAINE, GERARD—Lives and Characters of the English Dra- 
matic Poets; Begun by Mr. Langbaine, and Improv’d by a 
Careful Hand; (C. Gildon), London, 1699. 

Ler, NATHANIEL—Works; London, 1722, in 2 vols. 

Letters written by Hminent Persons in the Seventeenth and High- 
teenth Centuries; Edited by J. Aubrey, London, 1813. 

Massincer, Puitip—Plays; N. Y., Harper’s, 1831. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 


MILTON, JoHN—Prose Works; Edited by C. Symmons, London, 
1806, in 7 vols. Paradise Lost; A Poem in Twelve Books ; 
thirteenth edition, London, 1727, Tonson. 


Miscellany Poems On Several Occasions, Written by a Lady (the 
Countess of Winchilsea) ; London, 1713. 


Mist, NaTHaniIrt—A Collection of Miscellany Letters, Selected 
out of Mist’s Journal; London, 1722, N. Mist, in 2 vols. 

OLDHAM, JoHN—Works; sixth edition, corrected, 1703. Works; 
London, 1722, in 2 vols. 


OLDMIXON, JOHN—EHssays on Criticism; London, 1728. 


Otway, THomas—Works ; with notes by Thos. Thornton, London, 
1813, Turner, in 3 vols. 


Pepys, SAMUEL—Diary and Correspondence; N. Y., Dodd, 1884, 
in 10 vols. 


Poprr, ALEXANDER—Works ; London, 1752, Knapton, in 9 vols. 


Prior, MattHEw—Poetical Works; Aldine Edition of the British 
Poets, London, Wm. Pickering, 1835. 


RALPH, JAMES—The Taste of the Town; London, 1731. 


Roscommon, W. D. (EArt or)—Poems; London, 1717. Poems, to 
which is added an Essay on Poetry (1713) by the Earl of 
Mulgrave, together with Poems by Mr. Richard Duke; London, 
1717, J. Tonson. 


Rowk, Nicuotas—Some Account of Boileaws Writings, in an 
English Translation of Boileaw’s Works, by Rowe and Others ; 
London, 1712, E. Sanger. 


RyMeER, THOMAS—A Short View of Tragedy; London, 1693. The 
Tragedies of the Last Age, Consider’d and Examin'd by the 
Practise of the Ancients and by the Common Sense of All 
Ages, in a Letter to Fleetwood Shepheard, Hsq.; London, 1678, 
Licensed July 17, 1677, by R. L’Estrange. 

SEDLEY, (Sir) CHarteEs—Works; published the original manu- 
scripts by Captain Ayloffe, London, 1702. Works, in Prose 
and Verse; London, 1722, in 2 vols. Poetical Works of the 
Honourable Charles Sedley, Baronet, and His Speeches in 
Parliament ...; London, 1707. 

SHEFFIELD, JOHN, EArt oF MunGrAvE—Works; London, 1729, 
second edition, in 2 vols. Hssay on Poetry; 1713. 

SMEDLEY, J.—Gulliveriana; Title Page missing. 

SPINGARN, J. E. C.—Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century ; 
Oxford, 1908, in 3 vols. 


98 BIBLIOGRAPHY 


STEELE, RicHarp—Cf. The Theatre; under Journals. 

Swirt, JONATHAN—Works; Edited by Temple Scott, London, 
1897-1903, Bell, in 9 vols. Prose Writings; arranged by 
W. Lewin, London, 1886. Collection of Conversations; Lon- 
don, 1738. 

Works of the English Poets; Edited by Chalmers, London, 1810, 
in 21 vols. 

Worron, WILLIAM—Defense of the Reflections upon Ancient and 
Modern Learning; London, Goodwin, 1705. Reflections on 
Ancient and Modern Learning; London, 1694. 

WycHERLY, WILLIAM—Works ; London, 1731. 


B. JOURNALS 


Anti-Theatre, The—For 1719-1720, ef. Vol. II of The Theatre. 

Examiner, The—For 1711, London, Morpew, 1712. For 1712, 
London, Morpew, 1714. 

Freethinker, The—London, 1722-1723, in 3 vols. 

Guardian, The—N. Y., A. O. Stansbury, 1803, in 2 vols. 

Observator, The—London, 1684, in 2 vols. 

Spectator, The—Edited by Chalmers, Boston, 1872, in 8 vols. 

Theatre, The—By Richard Steele, London, Nichols, 1791, in 2 vols, 

Tatler, The, or The Lucubrations of Isaac Bickerstaff—London, — 
1718, Lillie and John Morpew, in 4 vols. 


C. LATER CRITICAL WORKS 


ARNOLD, MatTTHEw—Essays in Criticism; London, Macmillan, 
1902. ' 

BELJAME, ALEXANDRE—Le public et les hommes de lettres en 
Angleterre au dixhuitiéme siécle; Paris, 1897. 

CANFIELD, DoroTHEA F.—Corneille and Racine in England; N. Y., 
Columbia University Press, 1904. 

CHARLANNE, L.—L’influence frangaise en Angleterre au XVIIe 
siecle; Paris, 1906. 

DIBDIN, CHARLES—Complete History of the English Stage; Lon- 
don, 1800, in 5 vols. 

ERSKINE, JoHN—“The Moral Obligation to be Intelligent”; Hib- 
bert Journal, 1913, Vol. 12, pp. 174-185. 

FREEMAN, Epwarp A.—History of Hurope; London, Macmillan, 
1895. 

Fucus—“Comment les XVIIe et XVIIIe siécles ont jugé Ron- 
sard,” Revue de la Renaissance; 1908, Vols. 8 and 9. 

GENEST, J.—Some Account of the Bnglish Stage; London, 1832, 
in 10 vols. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 99 


GossE, EpMuNnD—A History of Bighteenth Century Literature ; 
London, Macmillan, 1898. From Shakespeare to Pope; N. Y., 
Dodd, Mead & Co., 1885. Malherbe; Oxford, 1920. Seven- 
teenth Century Studies ; London, K. Paul, Trench & Co., 1883. 

HAMERTON, P. G.—French and English, A Comparison; Boston, 
Roberts, 1889. 

Hunt, Lerigo—Dramatic Essays ; London, 1894, Walter Scott, Ltd. 

JUSSERAND, J. J.—A Literary History of the English People; 
N. Y., G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1895-1909. 

Kastner, L. E.—‘‘Elizabethan Sonneteers and French Poetry,” 
Modern Language Review; 1907, Vol. 3, pp. 268-277. 

Lecouis, EMILE—Défense de la poésie francaise; Paris, 1912. 

Marcovu, P. B.—‘“‘Are French Poets Poetical?” Publications of 
the Modern Language Association; Vol. 14, 1899, pp. 257-266. 

MATTHEWS, BRANDER—Gateways to Literature; N. Y., Charles 
Seribner’s Sons, 1912. “The Development of the French 
Drama,” International Quarterly; Vol. 7, 1903, pp. 14-32. 

McAFEE, HELEN—Pepys on the Restoration Stage; New Haven, 
Yale University Press, 1916. 

Paris, Gaston—Boileau; Paris, 1892. 

Prrersen, K.—Die Urteile Boileaus iiber die Dichter seiner Zeit mh 
Kiel, 1906. 

SAINTSBURY, GEORGE—WMiscellaneous Essays; N. Y., Charles Scrib- 
ner’s Sons, 1892. 

SANTAYANA, GEoRGE—Interpretations of Religion and Poetry; 
N. Y., Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905. 

Sepewick, H. D.—‘‘English as against French Poetry”; Atlantic 
Monthly; Vol. 81, 1899, pp. 289-298. 

SHERWOOD, MarGARET—Dryden’s Dramatic Theory and Practise ; 
Boston, 1898. 

TAINE, H. A.—Histoire de la littérature anglaise ; Paris, Hachette, 
in 5 vols., 1904-1906. 

THIEME, Hueco P.—The Technique of the French Alexandrine ; 
Ann Arbor, preface, 1897, bastard title-page. 

Van Doren, MarK—The Poetry of John Dryden; N. Y., Harcourt, 
Brace and Howe, 1920. 

WEEKS, Raymonp—“English Distaste for French Poetry’; Col- 
umbia University Quarterly, Vol. 20, 1918, pp. 125-138. 
Wruie, Laura J.—The Development of English Criticism; New 

Haven, Yale University Press, 1894. 





INDEX 


| This index includes only names, of actual literary 


import. | 


Addison, 41, 50, 53, 60, 64, 70, 
16,°77,. 79. 

Anacreon, 46, 90. 

Arbuthnot, 76. 

Ariosto, 72. 

Aristotle, 2, 12, 13, 14, 17, 49, 
50, 67, 73. 

Athanasius, St., 49. 

Augustine, St., 49. 


Ballard, 10. 

Balzac, 77. 

Bayle, 46, 52, 77. 

Behn, 10, ae 

Beljame, 4, 7, 18, 53. 

_ Bergerac, Cyrano de, 77. 

- Betterton, 4. 

Blount, 86, 89, 90. 

Boileau, 2, 13, 22, 47, 49, 50, 
51, 56, 74, 76, 77, 79, 85, 86, 
90. 

Bolingbroke, 65. 

Bossu, 47, 77, 81, 89. 

Bouhours, 47, 51. 

Boyle, 5, 7. 

Buckingham, viii, 4, 80. 

Buckinghamshire, 72, 73. 

Buckhurst, 26. 

Budgell, 43. 

Bunyan, 8. 

Butler, 7, 11, 38, 40. 

Bysshe, 85, 86. 


101 


Calprenéde, 18, 46. 

Canfield, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 68, 69, 
70. 

Carlell, 9. 

Catullus, 90. 

Charlanne, 4, 5. 

Charron, 77. 

Chatterton, viii. 

Chrestien de Troyes, vii. 

Cibber, 53, 62, 70. 

Cicero, 49. 

Cleland, 76. 

Clifton, 31. 

Coleridge, viii. 

Congreve, 24. 

Corneille, P., 5, 10, 18, 19, 20, 
21, 22, 34, 36, 38, 54, 56, 62, 
69, 73, 78, 81, 83, 88, 89, 90, 
93. 

Corneille, T., 33. 

Crowne, 36, 37. 


Dacier, 47, 50, 74, 77, 81, 89, 
90. 

Dancer, 9. 

D’Avenant, 4, 18. 

Descartes, 47, 77. 

Defoe, 48. 

De La Motte, 47, 80. 

De La Rochefoucauld, 77. 

Dennis, 53, 54, 55, 59, 91. 

Desportes, vil. 


102 


Dorset, Earl of, 78. 

Downes, 4. 

Dryden, viii, 1-39, 69, 70, 75, 
89, 90, 92. 

DuBartas, 74. 


Epictetus, 49. 

Estrades, 46. . 

Etheredge, 32. 

Euripedes, 72, 83, 84. 

Evelyn, 3, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26. 


Faur, Guy de, 10. 
Fénelon, 47. 
Fletcher, 36, 38, 70. 
Fielding, 71. 
Fontenelle, 1, 47, 77. 
Fuchs, 1. 


Garth, 76. 

Gassendi, 77. 

Genest, 9. 

Gildon, vii, viii, 66, 67, 68, 72, 
73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. 

Godolphin, 78. 


Hardy, 74, 81, 88. 

Hedelin, 81. 

Homer, 72, 76. 

Horace, viii, 10, 12, 18, 22, 49, 
50, 72, 76),81, 

Howard, 23, 29, 80. 

Howell, 23. 

Hughes, 43. 


Johnson, Edmund, 85. 

Jonson, Ben, viii, 2, 12, 21, 36, 
38, 54, 72. 

Juvenal, 50. 


Kastner, vii. 
Killigrew, 4. 
Kneller, 30. 


INDEX 


La Bruyére, 47, 77. 
La Fontaine, 2, 10, 50. 
Langbaine, 13. 
Larrivey, 81, 88. 
Longinus, 50. 


Maintenon, 42. 

Malebranche, 46, 47, 77. 

Malherbe, 1, 22, 78. 

Marie de France, vii. 

Marot, vii, 2, 23, 81, 88, 90. 

McAfee, 27. 

Ménage, 58, 78. 

Milton, 3, 8, 22, 25, 30, 31, 48, 
51, 75, 93. 

Mist, 45, 46, 50, 55, 56, 57, 61. 

Moliére, 19, 52, 57, 77, 83, 91. 

Montaigne, 47, 77, 91. 

Montesquieu, 77. 

Morus, 8. 

Motteux, 35, 37. 

Mulgrave, 22, 30. 





Newcastle, 4. 


Oldham, 76. 
Oldmixon, 76. 
Otway, 79. 
Ovid, 49. 
Ozell, 76. 


Paris, 49. 

Pascal, 47. 

Pepys, 9, 26, 27, 93. 

Perrault, 77. 

Philips, K., 9, 10, 90. 

Phillips, A., 31. 

Plato, 49. 

Plautus, 19. 

Pope, viii, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 
71; 72, 78, ‘76,18, 4 Otel 
92. 

Port-Royale, 47. 

Prior, 65, 76. 


INDEX 


Quintilian, 50, 74. 


Rabelais, 47, 77, 88. 

Racan, 78. 

Racine, 5, 37, 54, 56, 57, 73, 74, 
78, 79, 83, 85, 89, 93. 

Ralph, 71. 

Rapin, 13, 47, 77, 81, 90. 

Richelieu, 29, 43, 49, 53, 88, 89, 
91, 92. 

Rochester, 4. 

Ronsard, 1, 2, 23, 78, 91. 

Roscommon, Earl] of, viii, 31, 
38, 54, 74, 75, 85. 

Rowe, 50. 

Rudel, 88. 

Rutter, 2. 

Rymer, viii, 31, 86, 87, 88, 89. 


Saint-Evremond, 68. 

Sappho, 46, 57, 90. 

Sealiger, 47, 77. 

Scarron, 77. 

Scudéry, G., 38. 

Seudéry, M., 4. 

Sedley, 4, 11, 20. 

Shadwell, 4, 24, 30, 32. 

Shakespeare, 21, 36, 37, 72, 79, 
93. 


103 


Sherwood, 5, 12. 

Sidney, vii. 

Sophocles, 83, 84. 

Spenser, 22. 

Steele, 40, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 70, 
78, 82, 91, 

Strada, 57. 

Surrey, vii. 

Swift, 48, 65, 71, 78. 


Tasso, 50. : 
Temple, 86, 90, 91. 
Théophile, 1. 
Tonson, 46. 


Villon, 2, 88. 
Virgil, 22, 49, 50. 
Voiture, 47, 77. 
Voltaire, 77. 


Waller, 22, 78. 
Walsh, 71, 78, 80. 
Winchilsea, 1, 10. 
Wotton, 86, 91. 
Wyatt, vii. 
Wyche, 22. 
Wycherly, 24. 
Wylie, 69. 








iad 
away 4 
yew Wa 
ley 

) JI 


(PA 


) hi 
PRS) 











VITA 


Rose Heylbut Wollstein was born in New York City, 
September 6, 1899. Completing her preliminary educa- 
tion in the City’s public schools, she entered Hunter 
College, where she was awarded the degree of A.B., with 
highest honors, in 1920. After a limited teaching ex- 
perience in the French department of that institution, 
she proceeded to the degree of A.M. in Columbia Uni- 
versity, receiving the degree in 1921. She continued her 
studies at Columbia University, where she held successive 
appointments as University Scholar in Romance Lan- 
guages in 1921-22, and as University Fellow in Romance 
Languages in 1922-23, completing the requirements for 
the degree of Ph.D. in 1923. 





4 <> Maal 0 | U sah Se ." 
‘ ‘ i { : 
; - hy ' ; 
7 A ee ye 
NP ; { ‘ 
i * 
ae | 
+ | 
7 | 
. 
4 1 
‘ 
i 
‘ 
i 
4 
: 
ry 
- 
* ’ 
: 
* 
j 
' 
; 
' 
° 
/ 
i 
' ‘ 
2 4 
‘ 
t 
‘ 
} 
i 
i 
“4 
9 
; re ’ 
t p i . 
i 
' “dss 
"a \y i ‘ , 
’ i - a 
i ' , , 
eas 4 4 
: 4 i : ‘ 
eh WA AG fly eee ra 
4 b ri , ‘ 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN 
ROMANCE PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE 


EpITtep By Henry ALFRED Topp AND RAYMOND WEEKS 


DIDEROT AS A DISCIPLE OF ENGLISH THOUGHT. By R. 
Loyalty Cru, Ph.D. 12mo, cloth, pp. xiii + 498. $2.25 net. 


LI ROMANS DOU LIS. By Frederick C. Ostrander, Ph.D. In 
Memoriam. 8vo, cloth, pp. vii +154. $1.75 net. 


EUROPEAN CHARACTERS IN FRENCH DRAMA OF THE 
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By Harry Kurz, Ph.D. 8vo, 
cloth, pp. xii + 329. $1.75 net. 


THE USE OF THE INFINITIVE INSTEAD OF A FINITE 
VERB IN FRENCH. By Benjamin F, Luker, Ph.D.. 12mo, 
cloth, pp. ix+ 114. $1.50 net. 


THE GLORIA D’AMOR OF FRA ROCABERTI. Edited by 
H. C. Heaton, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xiii + 167. $1.75 net. 


FRENCH CRITICISM OF AMERICAN LITERATURE BE- 
FORE 1850. By Harold Elmer Mantz, Ph.D. 12mo, cloth, 
pp. ix+ 165. $1.75 net. 


THE SPIRIT OF PROTEST IN OLD FRENCH LITERATURE. 
By Mary M. Wood, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xii + 201. $1.75. 


THE INFLUENCE OF ITALY ON THE LITERARY CAREER 
OF ALPHONSE DE LAMARTINE. By Agide Pirazzini, 
Ph.D. 12mo, cloth, pp. xii +168. $1.75 net. 


TIRANT LO BLANCH. A Study of its Authorship, Principal 
Sources and Historical Setting. By Joseph A. Vaeth, Ph.D. 
8vo, cloth, pp. xvi+ 169. $2.00 net. 


FRENCH TERMINOLOGIES IN THE MAKING. By Harvey 
J. Swann, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xxii + 250. $2.25 net. 


NOVEL OF EXTRAORDINARY VOYAGE IN FRENCH LIT- 
ERATURE BEFORE 1700. By Geoffrey Atkinson, Ph.D. 
8vo, cloth, pp. xili+ 189. $2.00 net. 


INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN OLD SPANISH. By Wil- 
fred A. Beardsley, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xiv + 279. $2.00. 


MODERN PROVENCAL PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY. 
By Harry E. Ford, Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. v + 92. $1.50 net. 


TOULOUSE IN THE RENAISSANCE. Part I. By John 
Charles Dawson, Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. xiv + 87. $1.50 net. 


LORENZO DA PONTE, POET AND ADVENTURER. By 
Joseph L. Russo, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xviii + 166. Tllus- 
trated. $2.50 net. 

ENGLISH OPINIONS OF FRENCH POETRY. By Rose H. 
Wollstein, Ph.D. 12mo, pp. xi + 103. Paper, $1.75 net, 
cloth, $2.00 net. 





i Pe et a 
} teh ae’ Pe eye eye mes Pay 
Sh o's ‘ era Uy on * Jas a weigtin Gory be Sits ues 
a . “ J ‘ 4 wy “Fo 
° \ . f ; aoe Wet Oy BO aa 
evi WOR: PAE AY b's tay? Pe Oke y Py t 




















is ae 
uF 24") Nee 


FL Ma oe 
eye st 
ah al 





rH) (iy 
ue 





= 
a 











